Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture research strategy 2027-2032: consultation analysis

13. Question 11

Theme: Impact Routes – Decision Support, Living Labs and innovation

Question 11: Is the Living Labs approach for co-production appropriate, and how could it be enhanced or adapted?

Introduction

The vast majority of respondents (61, 87%) answered question 11.

The Living Labs approach for co-production is appropriate

The vast majority (59, 97%) of respondents who answered this question were broadly supportive of the Living Labs approach, but most felt it could be improved. The Living Labs approach was considered ‘fundamental’ and ‘essential’ to increase knowledge, to scale impact, and to address specific challenges – through collaboration and real-world testing and iterative learning.

Theme 1: The Living Labs approach offers a range of benefits and opportunities

The majority of respondents that considered the approach appropriate said Living Labs have the potential to offer a wide range of benefits and opportunities. This included that Living Labs:

• have the potential to address issues regarding a lack of standardised information and consistent data collection within agricultural innovation – Living Labs could be used to enable consistent data collection and sharing
• ‘bridge the gap’ between research and practice, through real-world testing of innovation and practices, to address challenges
• create a platform for stakeholder collaboration and co-development by engaging a range of organisations and individuals, such as farmers, local authorities, land managers, and those from rural communities
• help other practitioners to see the policy outcomes they should deliver against
• could help to overcome scalability challenges

“Living Labs represent a powerful opportunity to bridge the gap between research and practice by testing innovations in real-world farming conditions while generating measurable data on production, resilience, and sustainability.”The International Barley Hub

“The linking of research, practice and policy through on-farm demonstration is central to the success of realising the potential of agricultural transition.” Sustainable Farm Network

“The Living Labs approach appears to be a reasonable way to address the challenge of upscaling from local/site-based trials to deliver larger, landscape or catchment-scale impacts.” SEPA

Enhancing the Living Lab approach

The vast majority of respondents (75%) (all respondent types) who answered this question suggested that whilst the Living Labs approach is appropriate, there were enhancements and/or adaptations which could be made to improve the approach.

Theme 1: Co-development and inclusion should be at the core of the Living Labs approach

Some respondents, across all respondent types, noted in their response that in implementing the Living Labs approach, it would be crucial to ensure that meaningful co-development and inclusion were built into the approach from the outset and that this should be a continuous process. For example, from setting priorities, to designing trials and evaluating results.

Further, respondents emphasised that the Living Labs approach should be ‘genuinely collaborative’ and include a wide range of stakeholders. Diversity and inclusion were considered vitally important in this regard to ensure the Living Labs approach:

• involved a variety of perspectives and draws on a broad knowledge base
• was viewed as a credible approach and has a strong sense of ownership
• has real-world relevance through co-design of solutions to address real-world challenges

Respondents highlighted the types of stakeholder they thought could be involved in the Living Labs approach. This included, for example, communities and community organisations, local authorities and education providers, land managers and farmers, as well as policy makers. Specifically, respondents referred to the importance of including farmers, individuals/organisations from under-represented groups and diverse geographic representation in the Living Labs approach.

Some respondents, across all organisation sub-groups, suggested that a ‘farmer-led’ or ‘farmer-driven’ structure could be considered for the Living Labs approach.

A small number of respondents (Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, and other stakeholders) raised a related point that whilst collaboration would be essential, there could also be a ‘single point’ of leadership to ensure clarity and accountability on the purpose of the Living Labs and to ensure delivery against objectives and outcomes.

“Food safety issues that affect multiple systems and stakeholders might benefit from this type of approach (for example tracing pathogens from farm to fork). In order to apply Living Labs to this area, it would be necessary to promote engagement with farmers and food producers and processors, and involve community food organisations, local authorities and education providers; ensuring diverse geographic representation, including urban, rural, and island contexts.” Food Standards Scotland

“Living Labs should be designed to reflect regional and sectoral diversity, ensuring participation from smaller farms, crofters, community groups, and local enterprises as well as larger organisations. Dedicated facilitation and resources for inclusion will help broaden engagement and enhance the credibility and real-world relevance of outcomes.” SEFARI Directors Executive Committee

Theme 2: Scaling and adoption of innovative practices and solutions

Some respondents, in particular Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise and other public bodies, noted that there may be challenges in scaling innovation and ensuring widespread adoption of practices/solutions generated through the Living Labs approach.

These respondents noted that Living Labs and other pilot projects/trials often produce ‘promising results’. They added that these innovations do not always transition into widespread adoption and systematic change and it was vital the Living Labs approach had appropriate mechanisms to support this to happen.

Respondents suggested that having a diverse range of Living Labs, with some operating on small projects with shorter timescales and others operating at a larger scale and over a longer timescale, could help to address the range of challenges and also help ensure that innovations were adopted more widely.

Further, respondents emphasised that knowledge sharing activities would be essential and could help ensure efforts are maximised and could help increase adoption of innovations. It was considered important that knowledge and learning was shared between Living Labs, as well as the sharing of data and best practices more widely across the sector to promote the implementation of solutions and successful innovation.

A small number of respondents suggested that the adoption and benefits of new practices developed from Living Labs projects, could be used as a metric to measure the success of the approach, rather than solely measuring the number of projects completed.

“Overall, the Living Labs should be designed to embrace the scale and purpose of the SRP. As such, Living Labs should range from those operating at small scale over short periods, to those operating at larger scale and longer, possibly open-ended, timescales. The latter would facilitate assessment of more systemic challenges, underlying causes and changing attitudes and behaviours of people over time.” NatureScot

“There also needs to be a commitment to share learning widely, not just within research networks but across the sector, so that good practice can be scaled up.” National Sheep Association

“We see the Living Labs model as particularly strong in its ability to connect science, policy, the supply chain, and practitioners in real-world farming contexts. To maximise its effectiveness, it will be important to ensure that Living Labs remain embedded in commercial farm settings, supported by robust data collection and evaluation frameworks, and linked across the UK to promote shared learning and scalable impact” Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

Theme 3: Existing structures and bodies could be utilised within the Living Labs approach

Some respondents, namely Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise and other public bodies, highlighted that there were existing structures and bodies which undertake Living Lab work (such as demonstration farms) which could be part of the Living Labs approach. They said it would be critically important to work closely with existing structures and bodies to help avoid duplication of efforts and maximise research impacts.

Some of these respondents provided examples of existing structures which could be part of the Living Labs approach, or bodies who could work in close partnership with the Living Labs. A small number of respondents referred to the work from SRUC on Landscape Enterprise Networks (LENs) which provides a potential end-to-end service with clear routes for farmers to be funded to trial, demonstrate and scale interventions, including feedback loops.

Additionally, respondents highlighted the existence of ‘research farms’ or ‘demonstration farms’ that carried out similar activities/projects to test and showcase practices for wider adoption. Examples mentioned in responses included:

• Sustainable Farms Network – community of 36 demonstration farms across the UK which work across agricultural sectors to address environmental, social and economic sustainability
• Scotland’s Monitor Farm Programme – a farmer-led Living Lab which has been running for more than 20 years, and which utilises a bottom-up, collaborative approach to work with research and advisory partners to test and refine solutions in real commercial environments
• Diageo Scotch Regenerative Agriculture Programme – a three-year initiative that explores ways to reduce carbon emissions from growing wheat and barley. This initiative has worked with around 20 farms and technical partners such as Scottish Agronomy and SAC Consulting to test and implement practices and develop solutions

Theme 4: Further clarification was needed on what is meant by the term ‘Living Labs approach’ and on the scope of the approach

Some respondents (Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, other public bodies and other scientific organisations) called for further information and clarity from the Scottish Government on the proposals for the Living Labs approach.

Definition

These respondents noted that it would be important that terminology such as ‘Living Labs’ was widely understood by stakeholders, and that there was a shared understanding of what was meant. Respondents suggested that the term Living Labs would need to be more clearly defined to ensure it does not unintentionally deter farmers and other stakeholders from being involved. Some felt there could be flexibility in the definition of Living Labs to allow for more areas to be encapsulated over time and to enable wide reach and engagement with stakeholders. A small number of respondents suggested that a more ‘farmer-led’ term could be used.

Scope

Respondents mentioned that Living Labs can vary considerably in terms of how they operate, their scope and levels of stakeholder engagement. There were varying opinions on the scope of the Living Labs approach. Some suggested that these could be focused specifically on one area – with a clear definition of the scope, objectives and outcomes to be explored. They noted that this could help to ensure stakeholders have a clear understanding of the work of the Living Labs and how they can engage with them. Others felt a broader, more flexible approach could help to increase levels of engagement from industry stakeholders as well as broaden the projects and innovations explored.

A small number of respondents suggested Living Labs they would like to see established, or particular areas of focus – this spanned:

• landscape
• coastal and marine (for example, aquaculture)
• agroforestry
• soils

Governance

Respondents who expressed the need for flexibility in governance arrangements for the Living Labs approach stated that co-management and shared decision-making could improve trust and ownership of outcomes.

“The Living Labs approach is a valuable component for generating insight and impact. However, there are significant challenges and limits to the Living Lab approach that might limit its ability to develop rigorous scientific results, and so limit the applicability of lessons learned to be applied more generally…We would encourage a broad view of what is understood as a Living Lab, possibly including multiple locations – up to and including national schemes” Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

“This depends upon definitions – and work is required to socialise this term. The Living Labs as presented at the ENRA Science Policy Conference were limited in scope (that is, to agricultural practice and innovation). A Living Lab model – depending on interpretation – can also be extremely useful for action research and demonstration /knowledge-sharing in areas such as biodiversity restoration, nature networks, planning for biodiversity net gain, and urban and rural nature-based solutions for climate adaptation.” Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh

“There may be very different approaches on how to set up and use a “Living Lab” depending on the research questions being addressed and the new SRP provides an interesting opportunity to explore this approach to enhance impact of the research.” Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

Theme 5: Time, resource and financial burden of participation

Some respondents, in particular Research Institutes and Centres of Expertise, noted in their responses that Living Labs can be time, resource and financially intensive on those who are involved. They noted that industry stakeholders – such as farmers and land managers – may feel that engagement with the Living Labs could create a time, resource and/or financial burden for them. They further noted that this could deter or discourage engagement with the Living Labs and constrain collaboration and co-development.

Respondents suggested that there would need to be adequate support for facilitation and financial reimbursement for these individuals/organisations, where necessary.

“A network of Living Labs will, in addition to skilled facilitation and governance, require the engagement and goodwill of both busy land managers and the busy stewards of existing networks. A value proposition beyond basic time remuneration (in itself a costly offer) is critical to securing this” Sustainable Farm Networks

“It is vital that Living Lab collaborators, including environmental NGOs, farmers and community groups, are able to access appropriate funding to support their participation in projects.” Scottish Wildlife Trust