The Role of Farmers and the Place of Their Knowledge in European Agro Living Labs. A Review

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7818061/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Role of Farmers and the Place of Their Knowledge in European Agro Living Labs. A Review

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7818061/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

In response to environmental and social challenges, agro-living labs promote participatory agricultural innovation by involving farmers in the co-design of territorially adapted solutions (McPhee et al., 2021). However, their implementation reveals significant limitations. Focusing on power dynamics, role adjustments, and the recognition of farmers’ knowledge and professional representations, this literature review offers deeper insights into participatory processes within agro-living labs. Findings show that farmer participation remains highly variable: some initiatives emphasize genuine co-construction, while others limit participation to mere consultation, hindered by time constraints, governance issues, or limited resources. The structure of participatory mechanisms is uneven, and professional agricultural constraints are often inadequately addressed. Moreover, knowledge hybridization remains imbalanced: agricultural knowledge is sometimes acknowledged but frequently marginalized. Five ideal types illustrate this diversity, ranging from symmetrical co-construction to marginal hybridization. Overall, a persistent gap exists between the participatory ambitions these initiatives claim and how they are actually implemented.

Practitioner Summary

Agro-living labs often struggle to ensure meaningful farmer participation. Successful initiatives involve farmers early, adapt to agricultural rhythms, and value experiential knowledge. For practitioners, inclusive governance, flexible formats, and recognition of farmers as co-designers are key to fostering relevant, sustainable, and context-sensitive agricultural innovations.

Agro-living labs

Agricultural word

Farmer participation

Co-design

Shared Governance

In the 21st century, environmental, social, and economic challenges have significantly transformed our relationship with agricultural production and consumption. The climate crisis, the depletion of natural resources, and the pollution generated by industrial production call for a profound re-evaluation of our practices. At the same time, growing inequalities in the distribution of goods and resources, along with public health issues—largely driven by unsustainable consumption models—highlight the urgency of rethinking our economic and social systems. It is now widely acknowledged that transforming production methods requires activating levers at multiple organizational levels (public policy, value chains, advisory systems, consumers) (Zahm et al., 2019).

In response to the transformations of agricultural and food systems, researchers have been led to rethink knowledge production methods by adopting more systemic, participatory, and transdisciplinary approaches (Moraine et al., 2014; Bawden, 1991; Röling & Jiggins, 1998). This involves strengthening the interconnections between heterogeneous forms of knowledge, broadening participation to include a diversity of stakeholders, and coordinating action across multiple scales—from the field to the territory (Barcellini & Prost, 2014; Prost et al., 2017). In this perspective, the co-design of innovative socio-technical systems in agriculture no longer relies solely on academic expertise, but acknowledges the heuristic value of experiential, situated, and practical knowledge (Chambers, 1994; Callon et al., 2001; Turnhout et al., 2020). By mobilizing these different forms of knowledge, collaborative approaches aim to generate socio-technical solutions that are more contextualized, socially robust, and better adapted to the complex challenges of sustainable development. This approach—focusing closely on the actual activity of stakeholders, their constraints, and their room for maneuver—fully aligns with the principles of activity-oriented ergonomics, which seeks to understand work as it is actually performed, in order to transform situations in a durable and situated way (Barcellini et al., 2025; Barton et al., 2025).

It is within this context that agro-living labs began to emerge in the 2010s, first in Canada and then in Western Europe, with support from the European Union (Schuurman & Herregodts, 2018). These participatory experimental spaces aim to integrate farmers into the development process of new agricultural practices and technologies, while also taking into account local socio-economic issues (ENoLL, 2024; McPhee et al., 2021; Trivellas et al., 2023). Their objective is to go beyond mere compliance with external standards stemming from academia, public policy, or economic actors (agri-food industries, certification bodies, funding agencies), in order to co-develop socio-technical solutions that are tailored to the specific characteristics of agricultural territories. In this framework, agro-living labs propose a more inclusive model in which a variety of actors — farmers, civil society, researchers, private companies, public authorities — co-construct practical solutions that simultaneously address environmental, social, and economic challenges at the territorial level (Witteveen et al., 2023). However, although these initiatives often promote an ambition of co-construction and broad-based participation, the way farmers are actually involved deserves closer examination. Indeed, behind the discourse surrounding collaborative innovation — a foundational principle of agro-living labs — we hypothesise that the concrete modalities of experimentation and change management may sometimes reproduce asymmetries in the production of knowledge and decision-making processes. Agricultural work, in its situated, everyday, and embodied dimensions, often seems relegated to the background of innovation dynamics, in favour of technocentric logics or predefined objectives. This raises a central question: how do these spaces account for the lived realities of farming, the professional values, and the organisational constraints that shape farmers’ activity? And more fundamentally, what role are farmers actually given in defining what counts as innovation?

This research engages in a critical analysis of so-called agro-living lab initiatives, by examining how farmers’ participation is structured and how their professional knowledge is effectively acknowledged. After tracing the emergence of this approach in Europe and its participatory promises, we propose a conceptual framework centred on different types of participation and forms of integration of the agricultural profession. Based on a qualitative and systematic analysis of agro-living lab cases documented in the scientific literature, we describe the tensions between discourse and practice in several projects, highlighting the challenges of co-design, the hierarchies of knowledge, and the underlying rationales. This reflection continues in a discussion on power relations, governance, and legitimacy within agricultural innovation dynamics.

Agro-living labs are built on the principle of participation, aiming to involve farmers and local stakeholders more actively in agricultural innovation. Drawing from open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), participatory research (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Reason, 2001), and participatory design (Schuler et al., 1993; Bødker et al., 2000), they seek to overcome top-down approaches by anchoring innovation in local realities (Meynard et al., 2012; Klerkx et al., 2012). These initiatives promote the co-construction of knowledge by integrating scientific, professional, and lay perspectives, enabling mutual learning (Bawden, 1991). In theory, agro-living labs offer farmers the opportunity to define their problems, test context-specific solutions, and co-develop new practices or technologies (Ballon & Schuurman, 2015; Schut et al., 2014).

However, despite the omnipresence of the term in discourses on responsible innovation (Stilgoe et al., 2013) or sustainable agriculture, the conceptualization of the notion of participation itself often remains vague, and its concrete implementation little scrutinized (Toffolini et al., 2021). Participation is frequently presented as an end in itself or as a quality criterion for the project, without clearly defining the mechanisms and conditions of involvement, decision-making modalities, or power relations between actors (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2008). Indeed, several studies show that, in many cases, farmers are more often mobilized downstream to test prototypes or validate directions defined upstream, rather than truly involved in problem definition or design processes (Moschitz et al., 2015).

This gap between stated intentions and actual practices raises fundamental questions about farmers’ real agency in these processes: do they participate as co-designers or merely as consulted users? Are their situated experience, professional knowledge, and work constraints genuinely taken into account in strategic and technical decisions? (Béguin & Clot, 2004; Callon, 1984). In this sense, participation cannot be reduced to mere meeting attendance or testing activities but must be analyzed as a complex process permeated by logics of inclusion, recognition, and power (Fricker, 2007; Honneth, 1996).

Through a review of the literature on the implementation of agro-living labs in Europe, this article seeks to examine these tensions and ambiguities by questioning how farmers’ participation is conceived, structured, and valued. It invites reflection on implicit activity models, underlying representations of farming as a profession, and the real conditions for co-constructed and reflexive engagement within innovation initiatives. More specifically, it aims to analyze the extent to which agro-living labs recognize and integrate farmers’ professional knowledge, how their constraints and work realities are considered in co-design dynamics, and what power relations underlie the very definition of what is deemed innovative. This reflection thus aims to shed light on inclusion logics, knowledge hierarchies, and forms of recognition (or distancing) of the agricultural professional world in these purportedly participatory initiatives.

The conceptual framework proposed in this analysis is developed through an iterative approach inspired by the logic of grounded theory (Glaser, 1967), which relies on a continuous back-and-forth between the examination of empirical cases presented in the literature and the refinement of theoretical categories. This dynamic process enables the theoretical reflection to be enriched while integrating the observed realities and tensions from the field, in order to better understand the modalities of farmer participation and the role afforded to them within agro-living labs.

3.1. MODALITIES OF FARMER PARTICIPATION IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION INITIATIVES

3.1.1. TYPOLOGY OF ROLES ATTRIBUTED TO FARMERS

The roles attributed to farmers in participatory innovation projects vary considerably, ranging from simple "testers" or "end-users" to more active roles such as "contributors," "co-creators," or "decision-makers." These roles, far from being static, evolve with farmers’ increasing involvement and their influence over project decisions (Berkes, 2009; Röling & Jiggins, 1998). Some farmers, as they develop their expertise, may be assigned strategic roles in project governance (Sutherland et al., 2012). The evolution of roles is influenced by social interactions and power dynamics, and the roles assigned can reflect contextual adjustments throughout the project (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). These roles are also shaped by project structures designed to enhance farmers’ active participation through forms of shared governance (Michel, 2023). This evolution, described by Long (2001), enables farmers to shift from mere recipients of innovation to co-producers of knowledge and innovation.

3.1.2. TEMPORALITY AND DYNAMICS OF PARTICIPATION

Farmer participation in innovation projects is a dynamic, evolving process shaped by contextual shifts, participant feedback, and changing objectives. It involves collective learning and mutual adjustments among stakeholders (Douthwaite, 2009; Sutherland et al., 2012). As projects progress, farmers’ roles adapt, reflecting deeper engagement and revised goals. Feedback loops help align objectives with on-the-ground realities (Gunderson et al., 2002), enhancing both relevance and co-construction. Sustained learning and knowledge capitalization are crucial to evaluate long-term impacts and ensure the durability of participatory approaches (Pimbert, 2011).

3.1.3. ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The organizational arrangements of participatory projects directly influence farmer engagement (Chambers, 1994). Formats such as shared governance committees enable active and continuous participation, giving farmers influence over decision-making (Sutherland et al., 2012). However, these formats must be adapted to the constraints of agricultural work, such as seasonality and workload, to prevent disengagement, and flexibility in formats is essential to maintain sustained involvement (Berkes et al., 2000).

3.2. INTEGRATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORLD

The integration of the professional agricultural sector into participatory innovation initiatives raises crucial issues related to the recognition of farmers’ knowledge, the articulation between scientific knowledge and agricultural practices, and the representations of the profession. Particular attention must be paid to how this knowledge is integrated and valued from the early stages of projects, in order to ensure the co-construction of knowledge (Pimbert, 2011).

3.2.1. KNOWLEDGE REGIMES AND HIERARCHIES OF LEGITIMACY

In participatory innovation initiatives, a central question concerns how farmers’ knowledge is taken into account: is it recognized, accurately translated, and mobilized equitably? Farmers’ knowledge, rooted in situated experience and local practices, belongs to a form of knowledge that Béguin & Pueyo (2011) terms the “professional agricultural world.” This is a universe of shared practices and know-how, structured around collective work experience, professional norms, routines, and practical intelligence of the profession. These knowledges, often tacit and constructed through use, sometimes come into tension with scientific knowledge, which is generally perceived as more formalized, general, and legitimate within institutional arenas. This tension is well documented in the literature (Méndez et al., 2013; Ingram, 2008), and manifests in how projects either recognize—or fail to recognize—the cognitive contribution of farmers. Too often, farmers’ knowledge is considered complementary but remains subordinated, only intervening downstream in validating or adapting innovations conceived elsewhere.

Analyzing knowledge regimes in participatory setups (such as agro-living labs) thus reveals epistemic power relations: who decides what is valid, useful, worthy of preservation or dissemination? As Goulet (2013) shows, forms of knowledge restitution—such as technical datasheets, publications, or visual materials—play a crucial role in the recognition and valorization of farmers’ knowledge.

The knowledge involved in these initiatives can be classified into several categories, as illustrated by the different forms of knowledge presented in Table 1 above.

Table 1
Typology of Forms of Knowledge Conceptualized in the Scientific Literature
Type of Knowledge	Definition	Characteristics	References / Theoretical Frameworks
Experiential Knowledge	Knowledge derived from direct experience of action, often embodied in practices.	Localized, tacit, contextual, often unformalized; mobilized by farmers.	Schön (1983) – The Reflective Practitioner; Ingold (2000) – The Perception of the Environment; Lave & Wenger (1991) – Communities of Practice
Scientific Knowledge	Knowledge produced within academic frameworks according to rigorous methodologies.	Objectifiable, generalizable, often normative; dominant in expert reports.	Latour (1987) – Science in Action; Jasanoff (2004) – States of Knowledge
Technical Knowledge	Knowledge applied to tools, devices, or technical infrastructures.	Operationalizable, often linked with technology; circulates between practitioners and engineers.	Akrich (1992) – The De-Scription of Technical Objects; Callon (1984)
Tacit Knowledge	Knowledge difficult to express, learned through practice and often unspoken.	Informal, embodied, related to intuition or gesture; little valued in institutional arenas.	Polanyi (1966) – The Tacit Dimension; Nonaka (2009) – The Knowledge-Creating Company
Strategic / Institutional Knowledge	Knowledge about the “rules of the game,” institutions, political programs, governance.	Enables access to resources and navigation of socio-political arrangements.	Bourdieu (1972) – Outline of a Theory of Practice; Ostrom (1990) – Governing the Commons
User Knowledge	Knowledge stemming from daily practices and the use of innovations.	Useful for co-design and innovation adoption; linked to user-centered design logics.	Von Hippel (2005) – Democratizing Innovation; Akrich et al. (2002) – Users and Markets
Local / Ecological / Contextual Knowledge	Knowledge integrated into the environment, rooted in a given social and environmental ecosystem.	Situated, linked to territorial dynamics and informal regulations.	Escobar (1998) – Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?; Berkes et al. (2000) – Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Experiential knowledge, derived from direct and often informal experience, is deeply rooted in the daily work of farmers (Schön, 1983; Lave & Wenger, 1991). It often comes into conflict with scientific knowledge, which is more formalized and tends to dominate within institutional arenas (Latour, 1987; Jasanoff, 2004). In addition, technical knowledge—positioned at the intersection of scientific knowledge and agricultural practices—plays a crucial role in the design of practical and usable innovations (Akrich, 1992). Finally, tacit knowledge, which is difficult to formalize and often undervalued in institutional settings, represents a vital form of understanding in farmers’ daily work, yet it is frequently overlooked in decision-making processes.

3.2.2. REPRESENTATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL WORK

Innovation initiatives are not neutral toward agricultural work; they often carry implicit visions of what farming should be (e.g., digital, ecological, precision-based), shaping models of the “good farmer” that may clash with farmers’ actual practices and identities (Burton, 2004). These representations reflect deeper conceptions of work, change, and performance (Béguin, 2007; Béguin & Cerf, 2004; Béguin & Pueyo, 2011), potentially favoring technocratic approaches over values like resilience or intergenerational continuity. Thus, engagement depends not only on material conditions (time, compensation) but also on symbolic alignment. If projects overlook farmers’ own definitions of their profession, they risk disengagement. Recognizing diverse representations of agricultural work and co-constructing innovation accordingly is essential.

This conceptual framework provides a structured tool to analyze farmers’ modes of participation and the integration of the professional agricultural world into participatory innovation projects. By emphasizing power dynamics, role adjustments, and issues related to the recognition of knowledge and professional representations, the framework deepens our understanding of participatory processes and their impact on agricultural innovation.

The analysis of farmers’ participation in agro-living labs draws on a corpus of 16 European case studies—some multi-site—supplemented by 30 scientific reviews (Table 2). Sources were selected via targeted searches on Scopus and Google Scholar using the query: ((“living lab” OR “living labs”) AND (“agro” OR “farming” OR “agricultural” OR “farmers” OR “rural”)). The corpus includes peer-reviewed articles, project reports, and book chapters describing explicit agro-living labs, enriched through bibliography tracking, ENoLL databases, and project communications.

Cases were selected based on European location and sufficient detail for comparative analysis. This European focus ensures methodological consistency and reflects the shared institutional landscape shaped by EU programs like Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe (Schuurman et al., 2016; Ballon et al., 2018). It supports comparison across socio-technical contexts while avoiding structural biases (Elzen et al., 2012). Such documentary review is standard in studies of territorial and participatory innovation systems (Fischer, 2000; Nevens et al., 2013; Steen & van Bueren, 2017).

Table 1
Overview of Selected Agro-Living Labs Included in the Study
#	Living Lab (Country)	Main Objective of the Living Lab	Sources
1	Teaser-Lab (France)	Territorial food transition and organic farming through participatory governance.	Coquil et al. (2019); Barataud & Coquil (2022); Fèche et al. (2020, 2021)
2	Dijon Sustainable Food 2030 (France)	Strengthening sustainable short food supply chains at the metropolitan scale.	Nicklaus (2022); Nicklaus & Lemanceau (2024); https://www.dijon-metropole.fr/projets/transition-alimentaire-prodij/
3	AgriLink (Europe)	Strengthening AKIS through multi-actor living labs for co-designing innovation services.	Potters et al. (2024); https://www.agriLink/
4	DigiFermes (France)	Development of digital solutions for sustainable agriculture.	Bouttet & Pierson (2017); Bergez et al. (2022); Alföldi & Schott (2020)
5	Occitanum (France)	Network of experimental sites for agroecological transition in the Occitanie region.	Bellon-Maurel et al. (2023, 2024); Larbaight et al. (2024)
6	Agrolab (Spain)	Agricultural revitalization of rural/peri-urban areas through agroecology and training.	García-Llorente et al. (2019); https://agrolabmadrid.com.es/
7	SaGranja (Spain)	Historic agricultural center focused on sustainability, training, and innovation.	Pastrana-Huguet & Casado-Claro (2024)
8	Agrotopia (Belgium)	Innovation in urban rooftop greenhouse horticulture at the REO market in Roeselare.	Pertry et al. (2017)
9	ALL-Organic (Italy)	Supporting organic farming in Basilicata under climate and economic pressures.	Pasinato et al. (2023); Colombo et al. (2024)
10	ECO-READY (Europe)	European network of 10 living labs testing resilient food systems.	ECO-READY; ALL-READY
11	Pecorino Toscano (Italy)	Co-innovation in sheep farming and cheese production in Tuscany.	Mannari et al. (2024)
12	Water for Tomorrow (Greece)	Sustainable water management for agriculture in the Thessaly basin.	Alamanos et al. (2022)
13	Agri-food LL of Vestfold (Norway)	Organic vegetable farming and co-creation of local food systems.	Hvitsand et al. (2022)
14	Calatino Bio-district LL (Italy)	Agroecological transition in a rural area through multi-actor engagement.	Cascone et al. (2024)
15	Agri-Food Living Lab (Netherlands)	Co-development of agri-food solutions through flexible information infrastructures.	Wolfert et al. (2010)
16	Vitirev (France)	Agroecological transition in viticulture as part of the regional VitiREV program.	Elia et al. (2022); Beaugency et al. (2019)

The selected documents were analyzed using a thematic coding scheme based on the conceptual framework’s key dimensions. This iterative process refined analytical categories to reflect the contextual tensions between knowledge and power in participatory innovation.

A cross-case comparative analysis followed, identifying patterns of convergence and divergence by considering the socio-technical, institutional, and agricultural specificities of each case. This highlighted how different knowledge regimes and representations of agricultural work influence farmer engagement and roles in agro-living labs.

Findings were synthesized using thematic matrices that cross-referenced roles, temporal dynamics, organizational structures, knowledge regimes, and representations of the profession. This allowed for a nuanced, context-sensitive view of participation, emphasizing not only how farmers were involved but also how knowledge was recognized and power relations shaped within innovation governance.

5.1. THE CHALLENGES OF PARTICIPATORY CO-DESIGN IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION

5.1.1. HETEROGENEOUS INVOLVEMENT OF FARMERS

The growing recognition of farmers as central actors in agro-living labs marks progress toward more inclusive and context-sensitive innovation models. In the most documented living labs, such as Teaser-Lab (Coquil et al., 2019), AgriLink, and the Agri-food Living Lab of Vestfold (Hvitsand et al., 2022), farmers are fully acknowledged as co-designers, participating from the earliest stages in problem definition, solution development, and evaluation of relevance. These approaches actively mobilize their experiential knowledge and aim to create trustful spaces that encourage the expression of divergent perspectives. They align with the founding principles of living labs—open collaboration, real-world experimentation, and co-creation—as defined by Leminen et al. (2012).

However, the analysis of the project corpus reveals a wide diversity of participatory practices. While some projects adopt a collaborative stance, involving farmers early and continuously throughout all project phases, others limit participation to more instrumental forms. For example, in initiatives such as DigiFermes, Occitanum, or VITIREV, farmers are often engaged primarily as testers or end-users, with limited influence over project directions. This reflects a consultation logic, or even post-hoc validation, where objectives are largely predefined by project leaders, often driven by technological priorities. Although compatible with certain innovation goals, this approach can reproduce power asymmetries and restrict the transformative potential of co-creation.

Between these two extremes, several projects exhibit hybrid forms. Agro-living labs such as Pecorino Toscano, Calatino Bio-district, and ALL-Organic involve farmers as contributors and co-designers, notably through co-design workshops. However, constraints related to time, resources, or governance limit their capacity to exert sustained influence on strategic project orientations. These limitations manifest as occasional participation, low continuity of engagement, or restricted influence within decision-making bodies. Such cases highlight that the effective implementation of participation depends strongly on concrete arrangements, governance structures, and the rules of engagement defined within each context.

5.1.2. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND FRAMING TENSIONS

On the other hand, the corpus analysis reminds us that farmer participation, although essential to the dynamics of agro-living labs, does not occur in an institutional vacuum. It takes place within complex multi-level governance configurations where a plurality of actors—public institutions, local authorities, companies, researchers, associations—interact, each carrying often divergent objectives, timelines, and logics. While this diversity is enriching, it also generates framing tensions that affect the scope of action available to farmers and facilitators in co-creation processes.

In the most advanced projects in terms of distributed governance—such as ALL-Organic, ECO-READY, or Teaser-Lab—farmers are clearly recognized as full partners. Their expertise is integrated into decision-making processes through co-design workshops, forums, and working groups. In these settings, governance is described as shared: decisions are made collectively, with a strong emphasis on cooperation and respect for the diversity of knowledge.

Conversely, projects like VITIREV or Occitanum reveal significant limitations. Although farmers are officially designated as “co-designers,” their actual influence on decisions remains weak to moderate. The weight of institutions (chambers of agriculture, local authorities, competitiveness clusters) in governance bodies is such that dynamics often remain top-down. For instance, in VITIREV, formal co-decision spaces are scarce; farmers are sometimes regarded more as recipients of proposed technologies than as full co-designers. Similarly, the Occitanum case highlights a dominance of synchronization phases with little bottom-up initiative generation, indicating an imbalance in effective governance.

The cases of Dijon Alimentation Durable 2030 and Agrolab (Spain) offer more nuanced situations. In the former, organic producers participate in governance via a committee dedicated to the SPG label, but conventional farmers are only partially integrated. In the latter, farmers exert recognized influence on project orientations through adaptation of tools based on field feedback, although some partners still view them as beneficiaries rather than co-designers.

Several projects also reveal the effects of territorial fragmentation. In Water for Tomorrow or the Agri-Food Living Lab of Vestfold (Norway), farmers are included as partners in collaborative workshops. Nevertheless, their influence can be limited by hierarchical dynamics across governance levels, especially when projects are embedded in structuring European or national programs. This tension between local autonomy and institutional frameworks is evident in projects like Calatino Bio-District (Italy), where governance is presented as shared but encounters power imbalances, particularly vis-à-vis powerful economic actors (distributors, agro-industries).

Finally, projects closest to polycentric governance—such as Agrotopia (Belgium) or Sa Granja (Spain)—demonstrate approaches where farmers are involved from the design phase and recognized as experts and co-developers of solutions. These experiences remain nonetheless rare and often fragile, depending heavily on the commitment of facilitators and the capacity to maintain human and financial resources to support genuinely inclusive governance.

Thus, the analysis of agro-living labs shows that multi-level governance is both a resource and a constraint: it connects different scales of action but can also generate lock-in effects where dominant institutional logics restrict bottom-up innovation. A fundamental challenge for these dispositifs is therefore to guarantee farmers not only a seat at the governance table but also a real capacity to influence decisions, fostering a balanced co-creation dynamic.

5.1.3. TYPES OF PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS

The comparative study of agro-living lab projects highlights a wide diversity of participatory mechanisms employed to engage farmers within territorially grounded innovation dynamics. While all projects claim to adopt a co-construction logic, the concrete forms that participation takes vary significantly from one initiative to another. These variations stem not only from the tools and formats employed but also from the extent to which agricultural professional constraints are integrated and from the perceptions project promoters hold regarding participation. The analysis thus reveals a recurring tension between the stated participatory ambition and the practical realities of implementation conditions.

5.1.3.1. A DIVERSITY OF FORMATS: BETWEEN WORKSHOPS, EXPERIMENTATIONS, AND DIGITAL TOOLS

The typology of implemented devices reveals variable combinations of in-person and digital formats, synchronous or asynchronous modes, and varying degrees of structuring. Most of the agro-living labs studied rely on a core of co-construction workshops (Teaser-Lab, Agri-Food LL, ALL-Organic), often complemented by co-design sessions, collective modeling (systemic or process-based), or real-world testing on farmers’ farms. For example, the Agri-Food Living Lab project (Netherlands) combines in-person sessions, sectoral working groups, and interventions on agricultural holdings. This diversity of participatory modalities fits within the living labs’ approach as open innovation devices centered on the end user (Leminen et al., 2012; Schuurman, 2015), seeking to capture both practical knowledge, field constraints, and social representations related to agriculture.

Some projects, such as ALL-Organic or AgriLink, go further by mobilizing formalized systemic analysis tools (mind maps, UML modeling, BPMN) to structure exchanges between actors. These tools make it possible to explicate farmers’ representations and articulate them with those of researchers, within a cognitive mediation logic.

Conversely, other projects like Sa Granja or Occitanum favor more informal or occasional formats, sometimes poorly detailed in the framing documents. This low level of structuring may encourage more flexible participation but also less robustness in terms of knowledge production or continuity of engagement.

5.1.3.2. FEEDBACK: A VECTOR OF REFLEXIVITY, BUT UNEVENLY STRUCTURED

Another key axis of analysis concerns feedback mechanisms, which are essential to ensure the reflexivity of approaches and the gradual adjustment of participatory devices to participants’ expectations. As highlighted by Björgvinsson et al. (2012), feedback constitutes a fundamental dialogical dimension of participatory processes, enabling the emergence of productive conflicts and social learning.

Projects such as ECO-READY, Calatino Bio-district, and Agrotopia have implemented explicit feedback mechanisms: interim evaluations, semi-structured interviews with farmers, and digital tools for experience reporting. These methods allow continuous documentation of the project's effects and help evolve the proposed solutions. For instance, in ECO-READY, digital tools are used to collect participants’ perceptions at different stages of the project, following a rapid iteration logic.

Conversely, several initiatives like VITIREV, Water for Tomorrow, or Sa Granja either lack feedback mechanisms or have implicit or poorly structured ones. This deficit can limit the project’s ability to adapt to farmers’ expectations and reduce the quality of the trust relationship necessary for genuine participation (Arnstein, 1969).

This inequality in the structuring of feedback mechanisms raises important questions about the quality and depth of participation offered to farmers in agro-living labs. Indeed, reflexivity — understood as the collective ability to question practices, integrate feedback, and adjust approaches accordingly — is a key lever to strengthen co-construction and the relevance of developed innovations (Argyris & Schön, 1977).

Moreover, the quality of feedback is not limited to the mere existence of formalized mechanisms but also depends on their ability to establish a truly bidirectional dialogue, where potential tensions and conflicts are acknowledged and considered as drivers of transformation. This role of feedback as a space for negotiation and social learning requires particular attention to the formats used, the frequency of exchanges, and how farmers’ tacit knowledge is valued and translated within decision-making processes.

5.1.4. THE FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CONSTRAINTS AND REALITIES OF AGRICULTURAL WORK

Finally, it is important to recall that this diversity of devices unfolds in a context where farmers are constrained by specific rhythms, workloads, and production logics (Purseigle et al., 2017). However, the cross-cutting analysis of agro-living labs highlights a heterogeneous consideration of the constraints inherent to agricultural work. These constraints—such as crop seasonality, peaks in workload, or mental load—strongly influence farmers’ availability and engagement in participatory approaches. Some projects, like Digifermes, ALL-Organic, or the Agri-Food Living Lab (Netherlands), demonstrate marked attention to these realities. For example, ALL-Organic organizes its activities around less intensive agricultural periods and shows flexibility regarding participant commitments. Digifermes adapts its solutions to agricultural rhythms with significant flexibility, which facilitates long-term farmer involvement. Similarly, the Dutch Agri-Food LL project explicitly takes into account time, seasonality, and mental load in the design of its workshops, even integrating language barriers to facilitate technical exchanges. These approaches show that when professional constraints are integrated from the design phase, they can become levers for engagement rather than obstacles.

Conversely, other projects appear less attentive to these parameters. Pecorino Toscano, while considering the agricultural calendar to organize meetings, neglects the issue of mental load caused by the multiplicity of agricultural tasks. This lack of systematic consideration can generate organizational fatigue or cognitive overload for farmers, thus reducing their capacity to engage in participatory processes. These discrepancies are symptomatic of what Barnaud and Van Paassen (2013) identify as dilemmas of “equity and legitimacy” in participation. A participatory device poorly adjusted to agricultural temporalities risks excluding by default certain farmers, especially those most dependent on their daily work and least available to attend meetings or workshops scheduled outside their agricultural downtime. This exclusion is not always intentional but reveals an implicit bias that can reinforce inequalities in participation within the farming community, benefiting operators already endowed with greater economic, organizational, or relational capital. More broadly, this aligns with Klerkx et al. (2012)’s analyses on the limits of innovation devices when they fail to consider “actor logics” and “action contexts.” In a sector as constrained and rhythmically structured as agriculture, a participatory innovation approach that is not grounded in the operational realities of farms risks producing a “showcase effect,” where participation is staged without real transformative capacity. These findings also resonate with Lamine (2018), who emphasizes that agroecological transition processes often fail to sustainably mobilize farmers when devices are not sufficiently flexible or contextualized.

Therefore, the efficiency of agro-living labs strongly depends on their ability to combine participatory demands with recognition of the specific professional constraints of farming. Only under these conditions can participation become inclusive, sustainable, and truly transformative.

5.2. A PROCLAIMED HYBRIDIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT DIFFERENTIATED AND ASYMMETRICAL INTEGRATION

The previous section highlighted the structural and organizational limitations of agro-living labs regarding the effective inclusion of farmers. While the stated intentions tend towards equitable participation of all stakeholders, practices often reveal partial, even marginal, involvement of farmers due to ill-adapted devices, governance that remains largely top-down, and insufficient consideration of the specific constraints of agricultural work. This gap suggests an incomplete, even instrumental, understanding of the agricultural professional world and its intrinsic dynamics. To deepen this analysis, we will now examine how different types of knowledge — empirical, technical, scientific, and experiential — are mobilized, recognized, or marginalized within agro-living labs, and what this reveals about power relations and the innovation logics at play.

5.2.1. AN AMBIVALENT RECOGNITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

The analysis of agro-living lab projects reveals an uneven, often ambivalent recognition of knowledge derived from the experience of farmers. This expertise, rooted in embodied knowledge of environments and practices, corresponds notably to what the literature calls experiential knowledge (Schön, 1983; Ingold, 2000) and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). In some projects, such as Teaser-Lab, Sa Granja, or Agrotopia, this knowledge benefits from genuine epistemic recognition: farmers fully participate in defining objectives and designing the processes, reflecting a willingness to consider their professional rationality as a structuring framework for the project.

Conversely, initiatives like VITIREV or Water for Tomorrow adopt a more instrumental stance: farmers are primarily solicited as testers or validators of pre-designed technological solutions. Their role is often limited to functional feedback, with subordinate epistemic recognition. This position reflects a classic hierarchy between technical knowledge (Akrich, 1992) and experiential knowledge, where the former tends to dominate project governance.

Moreover, some cases, like Pecorino Toscano or the Agri-Food Living Lab in the Netherlands, illustrate a conditional recognition of agricultural knowledge: it is mobilized occasionally, often constrained by rigid methodological frameworks or technoscientific expectations (Latour, 1987; Jasanoff, 2004). This instrumental integration tends to marginalize local, ecological, and contextual knowledge (Escobar, 1998; Berkes et al., 2000), limiting its scope to a supplementary function without considering its normative or strategic dimension.

This differentiated treatment of agricultural knowledge reflects a genuine crisis of recognition in the sense of Honneth (1995), where agricultural actors struggle to see their experience fully valued in arenas supposedly collaborative. This results in a marked gap between official discourses on co-construction and actual governance practices, where farmers often remain in a subordinate position.

To overcome this ambivalence, a structural change is necessary: it is not just a matter of opening participation spaces but fundamentally transforming the very conditions of knowledge production. This implies fully recognizing situated rationalities, the specific temporalities of agricultural activity, as well as the engagement logics and strategic/institutional knowledge (Bourdieu, 1972; Ostrom, 1990) carried by field professionals.

5.2.2. MULTIPLE KNOWLEDGE TYPES PRESENT, BUT UNEVENLY ARTICULATED: FIVE IDEAL-TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE HYBRIDIZATION

Across all observed projects, a common orientation emerges: the aim to mobilize multiple and complementary types of knowledge. The corpus analysis thus reveals both the potential complementarity between these knowledges and their sometimes conflicting or asymmetrical relationships, depending on the institutional, social, and political contexts in which the projects are embedded.

Operationally, the studied projects implement very contrasting forms of knowledge hybridization, which we have grouped into five ideal-types (Table 3): symmetrical, reflexive, technical, declarative, and marginal. These ideal-types, in the sense of Max Weber, do not describe pure empirical situations but constitute analytical models built to account for major trends. They allow the comparison of studied cases with theoretical reference forms, highlighting gaps, tensions, or convergences. These categories thus provide an analytical framework to understand how different types of knowledge are mobilized, valued, or hierarchized within the dynamics of agro-living labs, while shedding light on the concrete modalities of inclusion — or marginalization — of actors from the professional agricultural world (Béguin, 2007).

Table 3
Five Ideal Types of Knowledge Hybridization in Agro-Living Labs
Type of Hybridization	Main Characteristics	Place of Agricultural Professional Knowledge	Relationship with the Agricultural Professional World
Symmetrical	Genuine co-construction, equality of cognitive status among actors	Agricultural actors recognized as co-producers of knowledge	Full recognition of the professional world as a space of its own rationality
Reflexive	Debate and critical questioning of knowledge regimes, integrated critical devices	Active participation of farmers in defining problems and criteria	The professional world is taken seriously as a normative framework and a source of productive conflict
Technical	Focus on development or adaptation of tools	Professional knowledge mobilized to refine or validate pre-designed solutions	Reduction of the professional world to a reservoir of empirical data or feedback
Declarative	Display of participatory intentions without real transformation of knowledge relations	Formal, consultative participation	The professional world is symbolically invoked but little recognized in its epistemic specificities
Marginal	Low integration of non-scientific knowledge; innovation centered on research	Professional knowledge ignored or instrumentalized	The professional world is kept at the margins, perceived as an obstacle rather than a resource

Symmetrical hybridization is characterized by genuine co-construction of knowledge, where different types of knowledge are placed on an equal footing. Projects such as AgriLink, Digifermes, Agrotopia, and ECO-READY illustrate this configuration: farmers actively participate from the early stages of defining issues through to the evaluation of solutions, mobilizing their experiential, tacit, or contextual knowledge alongside scientific and technical knowledge. These approaches reflect full recognition of the professional agricultural world as an autonomous rationality space.

In the case of reflective hybridization, as observed in Agrolab, the diversity of knowledge is acknowledged but gives rise to epistemic tensions. The projects incorporate mechanisms for debate about success criteria, objectives, or methods, while sometimes struggling to fully articulate scientific, experiential, and contextual knowledge. Farmers are involved in problem definition, but compromises remain fragile, illustrating a serious but still partial consideration of the professional world as a full normative framework.

Technical hybridization is exemplified by projects like VITIREV or Occitanum, where scientific and technological knowledge dominates the orientation of the processes. Farmers’ knowledge is mobilized to test or refine tools designed upstream but rarely to redefine the project’s goals. This reflects a partial instrumentalization of practical knowledge, often reduced to feedback or empirical validation.

Declarative hybridization appears in projects where participation is valued in discourse but scarcely implemented in reality. While projects such as VITIREV or Sa Granja mention the intention to integrate agricultural stakeholders, they are rarely involved in the initial phases of strategic framing, limiting their influence on major decisions. Their knowledge is thus symbolically invoked but epistemically marginalized.

Finally, marginal hybridization, observed more diffusely in some parts of Pecorino Toscano or more research-oriented initiatives like ALL-Organic, is characterized by weak recognition of non-scientific knowledge. Farmers may be solicited occasionally, but their contribution neither shapes the project’s agenda nor the technological or organizational choices, leaving the professional world at the periphery of innovation processes.

Agro-living labs constitute an emerging collaborative innovation framework, aiming to address the complex challenges of the agricultural sector by combining experimentation and co-creation among multiple stakeholders (McPhee et al., 2021). These projects involve the cooperation of diverse stakeholders to develop solutions adapted to local realities. However, the implementation of these participatory processes is not without challenges. It raises crucial questions regarding governance, participation modalities, and the recognition of agricultural knowledge.

6.1. KNOWLEDGE AND POWER: THE CHALLENGING RECOGNITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROFESSIONAL WORLD IN AGRO-LIVING LABS

The analysis of the corpus reveals that the hybridization of knowledge, although proclaimed as a common objective across the projects studied, encounters several structural obstacles. Epistemic tensions and persistent asymmetries observed in several agro-living lab projects (such as VITIREV and Pecorino Toscano) reveal a continued dominance of scientific knowledge. The hierarchy between types of knowledge, well-documented in the sociology of science (Foucault, 1977; Bourdieu, 2001), remains a structuring factor. Scientific knowledge retains implicit authority, often associated with universality and rationality, while practical knowledge is relegated to a role of validation or adjustment, following a logic of downstream innovation (Von Hippel, 2005).

This hierarchy is reinforced by several mechanisms that marginalize the practical knowledge of farmers. First, implicit hierarchies of legitimacy value scientific knowledge due to its universality and formalism, whereas farmers’ experiential or tacit knowledge is often perceived as local, specific to particular contexts, and difficult to generalize to other situations. Second, institutional competition exacerbates this asymmetry, as shown by the AgriLink project, where the entanglement between public agricultural advisory services, research, and private expertise tends to marginalize farmers’ professional logics, often relegating them to secondary roles.

Furthermore, the partial translation of agricultural knowledge into expert or institutional languages distorts its scope or reduces its agency (Callon, 1984; Laurent, 2011). On the other hand, governance systems dominated by managerial rationalities filter contributions according to their conformity to technoscientific objectives. Finally, the role assigned to farmers in many projects remains limited to validating or experimenting with solutions designed by other actors, without the possibility of fully mobilizing their professional knowledge and field expertise (Von Hippel, 2005).

These practices generate epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), in which farmers’ knowledge is not recognized as a legitimate contribution to knowledge. These asymmetries highlight that the plurality of knowledge is not sufficient: it is also necessary to establish reflexive mechanisms (Callon, 1984; Laurent, 2011) that allow recognizing and articulating different epistemic legitimacies so that farmers’ knowledge is truly valued and integrated into innovation processes.

6.2. BETWEEN TECHNOCRATIC MONORATIONALITY AND PROFESSIONAL PLURIRATIONALITY

The difficulty in articulating scientific and professional knowledge within agro-living labs points to a more fundamental divergence between two forms of rationality. By “rationality,” we mean the logics of judgment, action, and justification that guide practices and decisions in innovation projects (Weber, 1922; Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991).

On one side, the dominant rationality, carried by scientific and technocratic institutions, often relies on logics of efficiency, optimization, and performance. It favors objectifiable and quantifiable criteria — such as yields, economic indicators, or modeled environmental performances — which facilitate the standardization of solutions and their transferability (Jasanoff, 2004; Levidow et al., 2014). This monorationality tends to marginalize other forms of justification based on ethical, territorial, or ecological values.

In contrast, actors in the agricultural world mobilize a plurirationality rooted in situated experiences, specific temporalities, and complex trade-offs among economic constraints, biological cycles, societal expectations, and family trajectories (Purseigle, 2017; Lamine, 2018). This professional rationality relies on tacit, systemic, and ecological knowledge, which is difficult to integrate into the standardized analytical frameworks used by technoscientific devices (Polanyi, 1966; Ingold, 2000; Schön, 1983).

This confrontation between rationalities produces a structural mismatch between the logics of innovation systems — often bearing a universalizing ambition — and the heterogeneous realities of agricultural work, deeply embedded in local contexts (Callon et al., 2001; Barreteau et al., 2016). When knowledge hybridization does not fully recognize farmers as epistemic actors in their own right, endowed with reflexive and strategic competencies, it remains instrumental inclusion, incapable of producing truly adapted, sustainable, and transformative innovations.

This tension between divergent rationalities invites us to consider innovation systems not as mere technical frameworks, but as genuine sociotechnical arenas (Callon et al., 2001) where worldviews, registers of justification (Boltanski & Thévenot, 1991), and heterogeneous action goals confront and negotiate. In this context, knowledge hybridization cannot be reduced to an additive juxtaposition of skills or knowledge; it requires active mediation, translation (Latour, 1987), and sometimes confrontation between often asymmetric logics of action and epistemologies.

For agro-living labs to truly function as spaces of transformative innovation (Levidow et al., 2014), it is necessary to recognize the agricultural professional world not merely as users or operators of solutions, but as full-fledged epistemic actors (Jasanoff, 2004; Barreteau et al., 2016). This requires moving beyond instrumental participation approaches, which limit involvement to ex-post validation, to build spaces for constructive controversy, deliberation, and mutual recognition (Felt, 2009).

According to Béguin and Clot (2004), truly grounded innovation in professional realities arises from the articulation of three complementary knowledge regimes: scholarly knowledge, stemming from scientific research and formalized according to academic norms; use knowledge, carried by users through their daily experience with tools, devices, or environments; and enacted knowledge, rooted in concrete activity, often tacit, mobilized in doing and embedded in work gestures. It is within this dialogic dynamic, open to uncertainty, that the transformative potential of agro-living labs would reside.

6.3. LIMITATIONS ET PERSPECTIVES

6.3.1. LIMITATIONS

One of the main limitations of this study lies in the lack of research on the lived experience of farmers within agro-living labs. This gap prevents a full understanding of their perceptions regarding co-creation processes and the solutions implemented. Furthermore, the technical and promotional documentation of agro-living lab projects often remains too general, omitting crucial details about the actual implementation of projects, particularly concerning governance and the management of tensions between stakeholders. Finally, many agro-living labs have not been the subject of academic publications, thus limiting access to a variety of case studies and hindering an in-depth comparison between different initiatives and their implementation in the field.

6.3.2. PERSPECTIVES

The results of this study open several avenues for deepening the understanding of dynamics within agro-living labs, with reflexivity being a central theme. By reflexivity, we refer to the ability of all actors—researchers, facilitators, farmers, and institutional representatives—to continuously question the purposes, legitimization frameworks, and power asymmetries structuring participatory processes (Schön, 1983; Felt, 2009). In agro-living labs, reflexivity is crucial as innovation occurs at the intersection of heterogeneous knowledges and standardized institutional logics. It guards against technocratic drift (Pestre, 2003), which can reintroduce top-down governance forms, sidelining professional and experiential knowledges. A reflexive stance includes recognizing situated knowledges (Haraway, 2013) and considering how consultation devices and methodological choices impact legitimacy.

Promoting reflexivity requires agro-living labs to be seen not as mere experimentation tools, but as political and epistemic spaces where differing visions of agriculture, sustainability, and innovation are negotiated. It also necessitates mechanisms for critical self-evaluation to address tensions, imbalances, and methodological blind spots.

Another promising avenue is the development of participation evaluation tools. Co-creation is key in agro-living labs, but assessing participation remains challenging. Tools should measure not only quantitative aspects (e.g., meetings, attendance) but also qualitative dimensions like decision influence, knowledge recognition, and feelings of legitimacy (Détienne, 2021). Such an evaluation framework would bridge the gap between discourse and practice.

Finally, analyzing the differentiated recognition of agricultural knowledges would uncover inequalities and power dynamics between various farming categories (Purseigle, 2017). This perspective would explore how epistemic legitimacy is often granted to knowledge aligned with technoscientific logics, marginalizing local or critical knowledges.

In conclusion, agro-living labs represent a promising and innovative framework to address the complex challenges facing the agricultural sector by fostering cooperation and co-creation among diverse stakeholders. However, this collaborative approach is not without challenges, particularly regarding the recognition of local knowledges, the management of tensions between different types of knowledge, and the sustainability of proposed solutions. While these projects have the potential to reinvent agricultural innovation processes by integrating farmers’ experiential knowledge, they require particular attention to participatory governance, the quality of participation, and the reflexivity of involved actors. Moreover, robust evaluation tools and a better consideration of farmers’ perceptions are essential to ensure the relevance and long-term effectiveness of these initiatives. Thus, although agro-living labs offer a valuable pathway toward more sustainable and innovative agriculture, further efforts are needed to refine their processes and overcome the practical and epistemic challenges they face.

FUNDINGS

This project has received funding from the European Union’s HORIZON-MISS-2023-SOIL-01-08 programme under grant agreement no. 101157354.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

MGG, FB and MC contributed to the design and implementation of the study; MG realised the analysis, the interpretation of the data and the writing of the article. FB and MC realised the critical intellectual revision and the final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is not a clinical trial. Clinical trial number: not applicable.

DATA AVAILABILITY

No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. This manuscript is based on a literature review; therefore, data availability is not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the European Union’s HORIZON-MISS-2023-SOIL-01-08 programme which made this study possible.

Alamanos A, Koundouri P, Papadaki L, Pliakou T, Toli E (2022) Water for tomorrow: A living lab on the creation of the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Water 14(18):2879. doi.org/10.3390/w14182879
Alföldi T, Schott FX (2020) Désherbage en grandes cultures avec les robots Dino et Ecorobotix–Expériences par les Digifermes. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/39052/
Akrich M (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. Shaping technology/building society. Studies in sociotechnical change, 205–224
Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B et al (2002) The key to success in innovation part I: the art of interessement. Int J Innov Manag 6(02):187–206. 10.1142/S1363919602000550
Argyris C, Schön DA (1997) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reis 77(78):345–348. doi.org/10.2307/40183951
Arnstein SR (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J Am Inst planners 35(4):216–224. doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Ballon P, Van Hoed M, Schuurman D (2018) The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telematics Inform 35(5):1201–1214. doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.003
Ballon P, Schuurman D (2015) Living Labs: Concepts, tools and cases. Info 17(4):1–11. 10.1108/info-04-2015-0024
Barataud F, Coquil X (2022) TEASER-Lab: faire l'expérience d’une transition agri-alimentaire par la coopération autour d’actions fédératrices. Géocarrefour 96(96/3). doi.org/10.4000/geocarrefour.20420
Barcellini F, Cerf M, Lacomblez M (2025) Developmental foundations of Activity-Centered Ergonomics: knowledge encounters to construct both a critical analysis of work and developmental set-ups. Ergonomics 68(6):813–831. doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2415965
Barcellini F, Prost L (2014) Développement d’une agriculture durable et évolution des métiers et des situations de travail agricole. In Symposium organisé au 49e congrès de la SELF. https://ergonomie-self.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/acte-41-self-2014.pdf
Barnaud C, Van Paassen A (2013) Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management. Ecol Soc 18(2). 10.5751/ES-05459-180221
Barton HJ, Harris MT, Rogers CC et al (2025) Leveraging Ergonomics and Human Factors (E/HF) for community impact: what have we learned about how to make a difference. Ergonomics, pp 1–19. doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2025.2450726
Bawden RJ (1991) Systems thinking and practice in agriculture. J Dairy Sci 74(7):2362–2373. doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78410-5
Beaugency A, Destins L, Palluault S (2019), December Repenser l’innovation dans les systèmes de production agricole: la mise en place d′ un archipel de living lab dans les territoires de Nouvelle Aquitaine-Rethinking innovation in agricultural production systems: the establishment of an archipelago of living labs in the territories of Nouvelle Aquitaine. In Proceedings of the Research Meeting in Social Sciences (p. 6). https://www.sfer.asso.fr/source/jrss2019/articles/D32_Beaugency.pdf
Bellon-Maurel V, Larbaigt J, Barcellini F et al (2024, January) Regards croisés d’un ergonome et d’une agro-technologue sur les processus d’innovation dans un agroliving-lab. In 7ème édition de la Fabrique. Le travail à l'épreuve des transitionS, de l'Ergonomie
Bellon-Maurel V, Piot-Lepetit I, Lachia N et al (2023) Digital agriculture in Europe and in France: which organisations can boost adoption levels? Crop Pasture Sci 74(6):573–585. 10.1071/CP22065
Béguin P (2007) Innovation et cadre sociocognitif des interactions concepteurs-opérateurs: une approche développementale. Le travail humain 70(4):369–390. doi.org/10.3917/th.704.0369
Béguin P, Cerf M (2004) Formes et enjeux de l’analyse de l’activité pour la conception des systèmes de travail. Activités, 1(1–1). doi.org/10.4000/activites.1156
Béguin P, Clot Y (2004) L’action située dans le développement de l’activité. Activités 1(1–2). 10.4000/activites.1237
Béguin P, Pueyo V (2011) Quelle place au travail des agriculteurs dans la fabrication d’une agriculture durable? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, (13 – 1). 10.4000/pistes.1708
Bergez JE, Siné M, Mambrini-Doudet M (2022) Les voies de l’innovation en agriculture numérique: les living labs et Digifermes®, des dispositifs pour la co-innovation. Ann des Mines-Enjeux numériques 19(3):103–121. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03773267
Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90(5):1692–1702. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262. 10.2307/2641280
Björgvinsson E, Ehn P, Hillgren PA (2012) Agonistic participatory design: Working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign 8(2–3):127–144. doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.672577
Bødker S, Ehn P, Sjögren D et al (2000) Co-operative Design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. In proceedings of NordiCHI (Vol. 2000, pp. 22–24). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pelle-Ehn/publication/237225075_Cooperative_Design_-_perspectives_on_20_years_with_'the_Scandinavian_IT_Design_Model/links/00b4952825c2d2a42c000000/Cooperative-Design-perspectives-on-20-years-with-the-Scandinavian-IT-Design-Model.pdf
Boltanski L, Thévenot L (1991) De la justification : les économies de la grandeur. Edition Gallimard, Paris
Bourdieu P (1972) Esquisse d'une théorie de la pratique. Librairie Droz, Paris, pp 157–243
Bourdieu P (2001) Les héritiers : les étudiants et la culture. Minuit, Paris
Bouttet D, Pierson P (2017) Digifermes®: Un laboratoire des technologies numériques. https://driaaf.ile-de-france.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/GTagri-02_05b-DigifermeBG-Article_cle812835.pdf
Burton RJF (2004) Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44(2):195–215. 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x
Callon M (1984) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol Rev 32(1suppl):196–233. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2001) Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Seuil
Cascone G, Guarnaccia P, Timpanaro G (2024) A Living Lab Approach for the Construction of a Bio-District in an Inner Area of Sicily (Italy): The Case of Calatino. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141247
Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):953–969. https://pt.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/125-94OR-16929.pdf
Chesbrough H (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press
Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books
Colombo L, Ciaccia C, Ritunnano V et al (2024) Participatory Research in Organic Farming: Insights from an Agroecology Living Lab in a Mediterranean Area. J Innov Manage 12(4). 10.24840/2183-0606_012.004_0004
Coquil X, Anglade J, Barataud F et al (2019) TEASER-lab: concevoir un territoire pour une alimentation saine, localisée et créatrice d’emplois à partir de la polyculture-polyélevage autonome et économe. La diversification des productions sur le dispositif expérimental ASTER-Mirecourt. Innovations Agronomiques 72:61–75 ⟨10.15454/B1QGII⟩. ⟨hal-02194742⟩
Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking Participation: Models, meanings and practices. Commun Dev J 43(3):269–283. 10.1093/cdj/bsn010
Détienne F (2021) Collaboration. In Ergonomie : 150 notions clés (pp. 156–159). Dunod
Douthwaite B, Beaulieu N, Lundy M (2009) Understanding how participatory approaches foster innovation. Int J Agric Sustain 7(1):42–60. 10.3763/ijas.2009.0339
Elia N, Raineau Y et al (2022) VitiREV : les laboratoires d’innovation territoriale pour engager la transition. Rencontre Chercheurs - Professionnels : Sortir des pesticides en viticulture, PPR Cultiver et Protéger Autrement, Mar 2022, Bordeaux, Beaune et Montpellier, France. ffhal-04230775f
Elzen B, Barbier M, Cerf M et al (2012) Stimulating transitions towards sustainable farming systems. Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 431–455. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_19
Escobar A (1998) Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J political Ecol 5(1):53–82. doi.org/10.2458/v5i1.21397
Fals-Borda O, Rahman MA (1991) Action and Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. Apex
Fèche R, Barataud F, Coquil X (2020) Teaser-lab Une démarche ascendante et territorialisée pour un système agri-alimentaire sain, durable, et créateur d’emploi (Doctoral dissertation, INRAE)
Fèche R, Noûs C, Barataud F (2021) Building a transformative initiative for a territorialized agri-food system: constructing a living-lab and confronting norms? A case study from Mirecourt (Vosges, France). J Rural Stud 88:400–409. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.026
Felt U (2009) Knowing and living in academic research. In: Felt U (ed) Knowing and Living in Academic Research. Convergence and Heterogeneity in Research Cultures in the European Context. Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, pp 17–39
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books, New York
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press
Fricker M (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press
García-Llorente M, Pérez-Ramírez I, De La Sabán C et al (2019) Agroecological strategies for reactivating the agrarian sector: the case of Agrolab in Madrid. Sustainability 11(4):1181. doi.org/10.3390/su11041181
Glaser BG (1967) Strauss. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, 11
Goulet F (2013) Narratives of experience and production of knowledge within farmers' groups. J Rural Stud 32:439–447. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.09.006
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island
Haraway D (2013) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective 1. Women, science, and technology. Routledge, pp 455–472
Honneth A (1996) The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. MIT Press
Hvitsand C, Raanaas RK, Gjøtterud S et al (2022) Establishing an Agri-food living lab for sustainability transitions: Methodological insight from a case of strengthening the niche of organic vegetables in the Vestfold region in Norway. Agric Syst, 199, doi:103403
Ingold T (2021) The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. routledge
Ingram J (2008) Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? J Environ Manage 86(1):214–228. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.036
Jasanoff S (2004) The idiom of co-production. States of knowledge. Routledge, pp 1–12
Klerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., & Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic (pp. 457–483). Springer. 10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20
Lamine C (2018) Transdisciplinarity in research about agrifood systems transitions: A pragmatist approach to processes of attachment. Sustainability 10(4):1241. 10.3390/su10041241
Larbaigt J, Barcellini F, Zouinar M (2024), October Transitioning towards agroecology through digital technology: an empirical study of design activities in an agroliving lab. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2024 (pp. 1–7). 10.1145/3673805.3673833
Latour B (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press
Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press
Leminen S, Westerlund M (2012) Towards Innovation in Living Labs Networks. Int J Prod Dev 17(1–2):43–59. doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2012.051160
Levidow L, Pimbert M, Vanloqueren G (2014) Agroecological research: conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology sustainable food Syst 38(10):1127–1155. 10.1080/21683565.2014.951459
Long N (2001) Development sociology: Actor perspectives. Routledge
Mannari C, Bacco M, Spagnolo GO et al (2024), June Towards a method for modelling socio-technical process transformation in digital agriculture. In 2024 IEEE 32nd International Requirements Engineering Conference Workshops (REW) (pp. 306–315). IEEE. 10.1109/REW61692.2024.00046
McPhee C, Bancerz M, Mambrini-Doudet M et al (2021) The defining characteristics of agroecosystem living labs. Sustainability 13(4):17–18. 10.3390/su13041718
Méndez VE, Bacon CM, Cohen R (2013) Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology Sustainable Food Syst 37(1):3–18. 10.1080/10440046.2012.736926
Meynard JM, Dedieu B, Bos B (2012) Re-design and co-design of farming systems. An overview of methods and practices. In Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., & Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic (pp. 405–429). Springer. 10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_18
Michel S (2023) Espaces démocratiques et gouvernance territoriale: comment organiser collectivement les mutations du système alimentaire ? Innovations 70(1):123–151. doi.org/10.3917/inno.pr2.0140
Moraine M, Duru M, Nicholas P et al (2014) Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal 8(8):1204–1217. 10.1017/S1751731114001189
Moschitz H, Roep D, Brunori G et al (2015) Learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and facilitation. J Agricultural Educ Ext 21(1):1–15. https://arpi.unipi.it/bitstream/11568/659263/1/Learning%20and%20innovation%20in%20agriculture%20and%20rural%20development_the%20use%20of%20the%20concepts%20of%20boundary%20work%20and%20boundary%20objects.pdf
Nevens F, Frantzeskaki N, Gorissen L et al (2013) Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Clean Prod 50:111–122. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001
Nicklaus S (2022), December Les systèmes alimentaires territorialisés = enjeux, conception, réussites et challenges: l'exemple de Dijon, Alimentation Durable 2030. In Diversité agricole et diversité alimentaire : quels leviers d'action pour une alimentation saine et durable ?
Nicklaus S, Lemanceau P (2024) Les systèmes agri-alimentaires territorialisés: enjeux, conception, réussites et challenges. A partir de l'exemple du territoire d'innovation «Dijon. Alimentation Durable 2030» Innovations Agronomiques 92:28–39. 10.17180/ciag-2024-vol92-art03
Nonaka I (2009) The knowledge-creating company. The economic impact of knowledge. Routledge, pp 175–187
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University
Pasinato S, Ferrero F, Rolando G et al (2023) A Living Lab approach for sustainable intensification of dairy production: A case study of an organic and a conventional farm in northern Italy. Eur J Agron 149:126904. doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2023.126904
Pastrana-Huguet J, Casado-Claro MF (2024) From Agricultural Station to Rural Lab: Sa Granja, an Innovative Center for Agricultural Research, Training, and Cooperation on the Island Of Menorca. Eur Countrys 16(3):513–533. doi.org/10.2478/euco-2024-0027
Pertry I, Bleyaert P, Demyttenaere P et al (2017), September Agrotopia, a living lab for high-tech urban horticulture within Europe. In International Symposium on Greener Cities for More Efficient Ecosystem Services in a Climate Changing World 1215 (pp. 153–158). 10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1215.29
Pestre D (2003) Science, argent et politique: Un essai d'interprétation. Éditions Quæ. org/10.3917/quae.pestr.2003.01
Pimbert MP (2011) Participatory research and on-farm management of agricultural biodiversity in Europe. IIED
Polanyi M (1966) The Tacit Dimension. Kegan Paul
Potters J, Collins K, Schoorlemmer H et al (2022) Living labs as an approach to strengthen agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. EuroChoices 21(1):23–29. doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12342
Purseigle F, Nguyen G, Blanc P (2017) Le nouveau capitalisme agricole. De la ferme à la firme. Sciences Po (Les Presses de)
Prost L, Berthet ET, Cerf M et al (2017) Innovative design for agriculture in the move towards sustainability: scientific challenges. Research in Engineering Design, 28(1), 119–129. f10.1007/s00163-016-0233-4ff. ffhal-01337168
Reason P, Bradbury H (2001) Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. sage
Röling N, Jiggins J (1998) The ecological knowledge system. In: Röling NG, Wagemakers MAE (eds) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, pp 283–311
Schön DA (2017) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge
Schuler D, Namioka A (1993) Participatory design: Principles and practices. CRC. doi.org/10.1201/9780203744338
Schuurman D (2015) Bridging the gap between open and user innovation? Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University
Schuurman D, Baccarne B, De Marez L et al (2016) Living labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: solutions for sustainable innovation development. Int J Bus Innov Res 10(3):322–340. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55761884.pdf
Schuurman D, Herregodts AL (2018) Chapitre 14. Living Labs européens: origines, méthodes et outils. In L’avenir des Silver Tech (pp. 267–294). Presses de l’EHESP. doi.org/10.3917/ehesp.miche.2018.01.0267
Sutherland LA, Burton RJ, Ingram J et al (2012) Triggering change: Towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. J Environ Manage 104:142–151. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.013
Schut M, van Paassen A, Leeuwis C et al (2014) Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes. Sci Public Policy 41(2):207–218. 10.1093/scipol/sct048
Steen K, Van Bueren E (2017) The defining characteristics of urban living labs. Technol Innov Manage Rev 7(7). 10.22215/timreview/1088
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42(9):1568–1580. doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Toffolini Q, Capitaine M, Hannachi M et al (2021) Implementing agricultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: A case study in France. J Rural Stud 88:157–168. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.015
Trivellas P, Mavrommati S, Anastasopoulou A et al (2023), May Agro living Labs: Creating innovative, sustainable, resilient and social inclusive food systems. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1185, No. 1, p. 012036). IOP Publishing. doi.org/10.2307/4116585
Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C et al (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 42:15–21. doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
Tushman ML, O'Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–30. doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press
Weber M (1971) Économie et Société (1922), trad. fr., tome I. Plon, Paris
Witteveen L, Fliervoet J, Roosmini D et al (2023) Reflecting on four Living Labs in the Netherlands and Indonesia: a perspective on performance, public engagement and participation. J Sci Communication 22(3):A01. doi.org/10.22323/2.22030201
Wolfert J, Verdouw CN, Verloop C et al (2010) Organizing information integration in agri-food—A method based on a service-oriented architecture and living lab approach. Comput Electron Agric 70(2):389–405. 10.1016/j.compag.2009.07.015
Zahm F, Ugaglia AA, Barbier JM et al (2019) Évaluer la durabilité des exploitations agricoles: La méthode IDEA v4, un cadre conceptuel combinant dimensions et propriétés de la durabilité. Cahiers Agricultures 28(5):10. 10.1051/cagri/2019004⟩. ⟨hal-02267338⟩

TheRoleofFarmersinEuropeanALLRevisedWTC.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Role of Farmers and the Place of Their Knowledge in European Agro Living Labs. A Review

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. FARMER PARTICIPATION IN AGRO-LIVING LABS: PRINCIPLES, AMBIGUITIES, AND TENSIONS

3. TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK TO EXAMINE FARMER PARTICIPATION AND THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE

3.1. MODALITIES OF FARMER PARTICIPATION IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION INITIATIVES

3.1.1. TYPOLOGY OF ROLES ATTRIBUTED TO FARMERS

3.1.2. TEMPORALITY AND DYNAMICS OF PARTICIPATION

3.1.3. ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

3.2. INTEGRATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORLD

3.2.1. KNOWLEDGE REGIMES AND HIERARCHIES OF LEGITIMACY

3.2.2. REPRESENTATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL WORK

4. METHODOLOGY

5. RESULTS

5.1. THE CHALLENGES OF PARTICIPATORY CO-DESIGN IN AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION

5.1.1. HETEROGENEOUS INVOLVEMENT OF FARMERS

5.1.2. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND FRAMING TENSIONS

5.1.3. TYPES OF PARTICIPATION MECHANISMS

5.1.3.1. A DIVERSITY OF FORMATS: BETWEEN WORKSHOPS, EXPERIMENTATIONS, AND DIGITAL TOOLS

5.1.3.2. FEEDBACK: A VECTOR OF REFLEXIVITY, BUT UNEVENLY STRUCTURED

5.1.4. THE FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CONSTRAINTS AND REALITIES OF AGRICULTURAL WORK

5.2. A PROCLAIMED HYBRIDIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT DIFFERENTIATED AND ASYMMETRICAL INTEGRATION

5.2.1. AN AMBIVALENT RECOGNITION OF AGRICULTURAL PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE

5.2.2. MULTIPLE KNOWLEDGE TYPES PRESENT, BUT UNEVENLY ARTICULATED: FIVE IDEAL-TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE HYBRIDIZATION

6. DISCUSSION

6.1. KNOWLEDGE AND POWER: THE CHALLENGING RECOGNITION OF THE AGRICULTURAL PROFESSIONAL WORLD IN AGRO-LIVING LABS

6.2. BETWEEN TECHNOCRATIC MONORATIONALITY AND PROFESSIONAL PLURIRATIONALITY

6.3. LIMITATIONS ET PERSPECTIVES

6.3.1. LIMITATIONS

6.3.2. PERSPECTIVES

7. CONCLUSION

Declarations

FUNDINGS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1