# Scaling the impact of the energy transition through inclusivity and diversity across living labs

Julia Epp, Muhittin Hakan Demir, Lucia Liste, Berit T Nilsen, Marlyne Sahakian, Mallory Zhan, Christiane Walter, Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu

## ► To cite this version:

Julia Epp, Muhittin Hakan Demir, Lucia Liste, Berit T Nilsen, Marlyne Sahakian, et al. Scaling the impact of the energy transition through inclusivity and diversity across living labs. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2025, 21 (1), pp.2527474. 10.1080/15487733.2025.2527474. hal-05263941

HAL Id: hal-05263941

https://hal.science/hal-05263941v1

Submitted on 16 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Scaling the impact of the energy transition through inclusivity and diversity across living labs

Julia Epp, Muhittin Hakan Demir, Lucia Liste, Berit T. Nilsen, Marlyne Sahakian, Mallory Zhan, Christiane Walter & Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu

**To cite this article:** Julia Epp, Muhittin Hakan Demir, Lucia Liste, Berit T. Nilsen, Marlyne Sahakian, Mallory Zhan, Christiane Walter & Mehmet Efe Biresselioglu (2025) Scaling the impact of the energy transition through inclusivity and diversity across living labs, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 21:1, 2527474, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2025.2527474

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2025.2527474

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Published online: 14 Jul 2025.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Article views: 512

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

CrossMark
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

# Scaling the impact of the energy transition through inclusivity and diversity across living labs

Julia Eppª, Muhittin Hakan Demirᵇ, Lucia Listec, Berit T. Nilsenc, Marlyne Sahakiand, Mallory Zhand, Christiane Waltera,e and Mehmet Efe Biresselioglub

## ABSTRACT

The energy transition has not benefited all segments of society equally, raising critical questions about the design of just energy policies and projects. This inequity highlights the need for inclusive approaches, especially within living labs piloting sustainable energy solutions. A key challenge for living labs is achieving broad societal impact, which is fundamentally tied to inclusivity. Living lab research must prioritize diversifying participants and stakeholders to effectively scale solutions across diverse communities. Individual characteristics, such as gender, ethnic identity, level of education, wealth, and income, strongly influence the ability to participate in energy projects. As spaces for co-production and transformation, living labs should fully embrace diversity as a key principle, fostering deliberative exchange connecting actors from different backgrounds. The European Green Deal prioritizes a "just transition," signaling the political demand to develop transdisciplinary research projects that address issues such as energy poverty, the gender pay gap, and social segregation. To investigate this disparity, we designed and implemented four citizen action labs in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Türkiye, experimenting with different notions of inclusivity and diversity. Based on our findings, we explore the concept of inclusivity at the sociopolitical context (scaling up), stakeholder, and population locality (scaling deep and scaling out). In particular, we focus on the role of recruitment as a bottleneck for diverse public engagement. Leveraging the knowledge gained from the research process, this article provides evidence for setting up living labs in the energy transition, targeting distinctive social groups to create a meaningful impact across society.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 3 June 2024
Accepted 26 June 2024

## KEYWORDS

Living labs; scaling;
inclusivity; diversity; impact

## Introduction

The pivotal role of inclusive engagement and a just transition in the energy sector has been highlighted in recent policy initiatives such as the “Just Transition Fund” and the “Clean Energy for All Citizens” package at the European level. However, previous studies have shown a significant lack of diversity among social groups that have individually or collectively engaged in the energy transition (Bögel et al. 2023; Campos et al. 2022). Typically, male individuals with a high level of education and income participate in energy projects (Radtke and Ohlhorst 2021; Sovacool et al. 2022). Comparatively, women, persons with migrant backgrounds, low-income households, and many other segments of the population remain underrepresented (Hanke, Guyet, and Feenstra 2021). Although more than two million European citizens are involved in collective action formats for the energy transition – such as energy communities, cooperatives, or specific initiatives – a considerable untapped potential exists for civil society-led undertakings to expedite the energy transition (Shejale et al. 2025). This potential lies in areas such as securing additional financial resources through public investment, facilitating the widespread adoption of green technologies, stimulating the co-production of knowledge, and providing opportunities to encourage acceptance and promote energy justice

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<footnote>ªPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; ᵇSustainable Energy and Climate Policies Research Centre (SENLAB), Izmir University of Economics, Balcova-Izmir, Türkiye; ᶜNTNU Samfunnsforskning AS, Trondheim, Norway;</footnote>

<footnote>dDepartment of Sociology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; eBauhaus Earth, Potsdam, Germany</footnote>
(Biresselioglu et al. 2024; EEA 2022; Schwanitz et al. 2023). Despite the European Union's (EU) efforts to promote inclusiveness in the energy transition, civic participation continues to represent a relatively homogeneous group in terms of demographics and perspectives.

The emergence of renewable energy systems in which individuals actively participate as consumers, users, or prosumers, and overall, as energy citizens,¹ provides a valuable case study for evaluating the role of living labs in enabling greater equity (Campos and Marín-González 2023; Sahakian et al. 2025). As spaces of experimentation and co-creation, living labs are a prominent approach to public engagement and have the potential to address the inclusivity and diversity gap in the energy transition due to their reflective and open nature. Von Wirth et al. (2019) highlight a dearth of academic research investigating the potential connection between civic participation and the successful upscaling of social innovations. As noted by Cellina et al. (2018, 13), “social exclusion is a key constraint affecting upscaling itself,” suggesting that successful upscaling requires the inclusive participation of diverse societal groups. While research implementing living labs has grown significantly (Hossain, Leminen, and Westerlund 2019), with their potential to illuminate the complexity of sustainability challenges well established (Voytenko et al. 2016), a comprehensive understanding of how living labs can promote inclusivity within the energy-transition discourse and practice remains fragmented (Campos and Marín-González 2023). This article aims to address this knowledge gap.

In this context, our interpretation of scaling is built on three localities: scaling out to more partners and people (stakeholder/population locality), scaling deep by establishing inclusive co-creation processes and reflecting on underlying values (stakeholder/population locality), and scaling up to policy to address structural barriers (sociopolitical context locality) (Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano 2015). This article explores how incorporating inclusivity and diversity as key concepts in living lab research can increase impact across Europe and beyond, at all three scales. We identify lessons learned from four citizen action labs (CALs) that took place in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Türkiye, and believe that these rich insights can serve as a blueprint for other transformative, transdisciplinary projects. In this sense, this article focuses on methodological aspects of living labs and the following research question: How can the impact of living labs in the energy sector be scaled by incorporating different notions of inclusivity and diversity into their design and implementation?

The article is structured in the following manner. The next section reviews relevant literature and develops a conceptual framework for analyzing how diversity/inclusivity and living labs interplay. The third section discusses the methodology and describes the approach of the four CALs in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and Türkiye. The fourth section presents three localities of scaling in living lab research, design, and implementation and discusses them across the four cases. Finally, the fifth section concludes and provides suggestions for further work following the analytical framework provided in this article.

## Conceptual approach: creating impact through inclusivity and diversity

### Impact and scalability of living labs

While the need to increase the impact of initiatives in sustainability transformation to meet ambitious climate targets is evident, strategies for scaling sustainable innovations and the role of living labs in achieving a sustained and substantial overarching effect are highly contested (Augenstein et al. 2020; Lambin et al. 2020; Naber et al. 2017). In living labs, a wide range of participants, including businesses, universities, government officials, and the general public, work together to explore and test new ideas in real-world settings (Claude et al. 2017; Evans et al. 2015). The labs primarily focus on developing and implementing experiments and interventions in real-world settings to identify favorable conditions and tipping points for social change. Experiments in living labs can contribute to sustainability transitions by exploring and co-creating solutions to complex societal challenges. They provide a platform for joint learning and innovation, which is essential for achieving long-term sustainability goals (Bouwma et al. 2022).

Experimentation with socio-technical innovations is a collaborative endeavor. Such an approach aims to reduce uncertainty and gain practical knowledge through exploration and adjustment, learning
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

from different participants and adapting as the process evolves (Kalinauskaitė et al. 2021). Literature in transition studies discusses various mechanisms through which experiments and living labs can have an impact beyond their own boundaries (Schäpke et al. 2024; Yndigeagn et al. 2021). However, it is important to acknowledge that impact is not a straightforward and linear concept. Instead, impact is co-created, subjectively evaluated, and embedded in multiple stakeholders, processes, and technologies (Schäpke et al. 2024).

Living labs have often been criticized in the extant literature for offering solutions for sustainable development that are geographically or institutionally limited, lacking robustness in their results, or being difficult to transfer to other regions (Hossain, Leminen, and Westerlund 2019; Von Wirth et al. 2019). In the past, living labs have been shown to inadvertently perpetuate existing exclusionary practices in certain contexts, rather than “doing something different” (Evans and Karvonen 2014). Recurring criticism concerns the insufficient mainstreaming of solutions and the lack of structural impact toward institutionalizing more sustainable socio-technical configurations compared to current systems (Augenstein et al. 2020; Cellina et al. 2018). This raises the question: How do living labs influence broader systemic change, both in terms of energy transitions and societal transformations in general?

Isolating the precise contributions of living labs within complex systems to specific outcomes remains a significant challenge (Kreß-Ludwig et al. 2024). Rather, their impact on broader socio-technical change tends to be indirect and cumulative. Moreover, contextual factors pose additional challenges, such as the composition of the living lab partners and the temporal and spatial gaps between interventions (Sengers, Turnheim, and Berkhout 2021). Experiments and other interventions are often local (place), temporary (time), and depend on interpretative schemes, norms, and resources (structure) (Schneidewind et al. 2018). They need to cross thresholds or shift boundaries to create long-lasting, transferable, replicable, and cumulative effects, like establishing new practices, knowledge, and networks. The following conditions have been identified in the literature as essential for scaling living lab impact: continuation of public funding, cross-institutional cooperation, changing policy priorities, and the development of stable networks (Kern and Haupt 2021; Schecke et al. 2021; Sengers, Turnheim, and Berkhout 2021).

In recent years, various concepts of impact have emerged (Schäpke et al. 2024). “Scaling” is one of them and it is often used to describe the process of expanding the outreach of a product, service, or idea to serve more people or achieve a greater level of change (Bohan et al. 2024; Omann et al. 2020). Nevertheless, scaling is not just about growing bigger, but also about adapting and refining interventions to work in new contexts or with different communities. Thus, this article focuses on the concept of scaling in relation to inclusivity, particularly to gain a greater understanding of the mechanisms of scaling to diverse social groups. The multifaceted nature of scaling requires further scholarly investigation due to its current ambiguity within the research landscape (Augenstein et al. 2020; Mitchell, Herdtle, and Jacob 2024). A growing body of literature transcends the limitations of living labs by offering diverse conceptual, methodological, and theoretical perspectives on scaling (Lam et al. 2020; Pfotenhauer et al. 2022) (Table 1). Nonetheless, living labs often lack a concrete strategy for scaling that identifies exactly *what* to scale (e.g., practices, numbers of users), *why* scaling is beneficial, and *how* to scale (Yndigeagn et al. 2021). As distinctly different disciplines, research strands, and practical partners are typically involved in living lab research, the connotations and models of scaling are diverse and may even be conflicting. For example, certain actors, such as those engaged in grassroots initiatives, prefer to work in their niche and may refrain from growing or scaling up their projects for broad adoption, known as a “scaling-aversion dilemma” (Augenstein et al. 2020).

In science and technology studies, there is a critical engagement with the notion of scaling and focusing on the rise of platform technologies, big data, and the pursuit of solutions to grand societal challenges through experimental living labs (Pfotenhauer et al. 2022). In addition, the concept of scaling is associated with the multi-level perspective (MLP) and refers to the process by which socio-technical niches evolve and integrate into existing regimes, often incorporated within various scaling frameworks (Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano 2015; Van den Bosch and Rotmans 2008).² Another common denominator of scaling is the transfer of socio-technical innovations, experiments, and results
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Key theoretical frameworks related to the questions of scaling in living lab research.</caption><thead><tr><th>Concept and reference</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Transition management<br>Van den Bosch and Rotmans (2008)</td><td>1. Deepening: social learning, experimenting, and learning in niches<br>2. Broadening: diverse experiments in a variety of contexts, diffusion into new domains<br>3. Scaling up: translation or societal embedding of sustainable niche practices in the regime</td></tr><tr><td>Acceleration processes<br>Ehnert et al. (2018)</td><td>1. Upscaling: the growth of members, supporters, and users of a technological innovation<br>2. Replicating: across and within cities through mediators, networkers, and translators<br>3. Partnering: a great variety of ways ranging from informal to formal ties and varying in temporal, intentional, and organizational dimensions<br>4. Instrumentalizing: resources (finances), provision of advice and guidance, and institutional and physical “free spaces” for experimentation<br>5. Embedding: new ways of doing (i.e., practice), new ways of thinking (i.e., culture), and new ways of organizing</td></tr><tr><td>Amplification framework<br>Lam et al. (2020)</td><td>1. Amplifying within: prolonging or accelerating the impact of one specific initiative (stabilizing, speeding up)<br>2. Amplifying out: impacting more people and places (growing, replicating, transferring, and spreading)<br>3. Amplifying beyond: by changing how initiatives create impact (scaling up and scaling deep)</td></tr><tr><td>Upscaling<br>Naber et al. (2017)</td><td>1. Growing: the experiment grows in size or activity (e.g., more actors or market demand)<br>2. Replication: the main concept of an experiment is used in other geographical locations or contexts<br>3. Accumulation: the experiment becomes linked to other experiments (facilitating interaction)<br>4. Transformation: the experiment shapes wider institutional change in the regime selection environment</td></tr><tr><td>Types of scaling<br>Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano (2015)</td><td>1. Scaling out: transfer of a set of practices<br>2. Scaling up: mainstreaming a social innovation (from nice to regime)<br>3. Scaling deep: changes in culture or social norms (intensification)</td></tr><tr><td>Temporal and spatial scalability<br>Schäfer, Bergmann, and Theiler (2021)</td><td>1. First-order impacts (e.g., learning and capacity building, network formation, increasing reputation) occur within the temporal and spatial scope of a project<br>2. Second-order impacts (e.g., continuation or transfer) are found in the close temporal or spatial context of a project<br>3. Third-order impacts (e.g., structural influence on public discourses, laws, and regulations) are changes beyond the project within the wider field of action</td></tr><tr><td>Diffusion processes<br>Von Wirth et al. (2019)</td><td>1. Embedding (e.g., local context, existing organizations)<br>2. Translating (e.g., to other regions or sectors)<br>3. Scaling (e.g., political level)</td></tr></tbody></table>

to other regions or sectors (Ehnert et al. 2018; Lam et al. 2020; Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano 2015; Naber et al. 2017; Schäfer, Bergmann, and Theiler 2021; Von Wirth et al. 2019). In addition, encouraging the growth of members, supporters, and users is an important element of scaling, depending on the maturity of each socio-technological innovation (Ehnert et al. 2018; Lam et al. 2020; Naber et al. 2017). However, none of the scaling concepts in the available literature explicitly touch on the issue of inclusivity, even though large overlaps between scaling and inclusivity exist. This results in significant untapped potential for greater diffusion and adoption of socio-technological innovations and social acceptance in the energy transition.

To this end, reinterpretation of scaling is necessary. Often, scaling and growth are used synonymously, building on the concept of economies of scale (Bohan et al. 2024). However, business models in a modern economy are less associated with one solution that fits all but focus more on the personalization of innovative ideas, products, and narratives depending on the target community. In this sense, the framework by Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano (2015, 75) defines scaling out as a replication and dissemination approach that increases the number of affected people or communities; scaling deep as changing relationships, cultural values, and beliefs; and scaling up as institutional changes at the level of policies, rules, and laws. One of the weaknesses of this and other scaling frameworks is the neglect of understanding the mechanisms for scaling to more people, ignoring that the involvement of more people also means catering to different narratives, different social contexts, and different financial capabilities. Therefore, the preconditions for scaling out and deep in terms of inclusivity and diversity need to be explored in more detail.

The overall impact of living labs can be increased if a scaling strategy is integrated into their design and implementation. Accordingly, developing a scaling strategy should be an integral part of a living lab, regardless of the maturity of the technological or social innovation, as it relates equally to the creation of a resilient niche and to wider outreach. Eventually, scaling does not need to occur
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

smoothly or incrementally, but in some cases, disruptive or radical change may be an inherent part of the process (Rajahonka, Merikoski, and Handelberg 2022). This article does not aim to advocate for a particular model or develop an overarching framework but seeks to highlight the conceptual plurality of scaling, allowing for tailored approaches suitable to a variety of contexts.

## Inclusivity and diversity in living lab research

Building on these considerations, we see great potential for scaling the impact of living labs by integrating the concepts of diversity and inclusivity. In this sense, diversity refers to “the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc” (Oxford English Dictionary 2024a). Meanwhile, inclusivity is defined as “the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups” (Oxford English Dictionary 2024b). In other words, diversity addresses the aspect of “who” is excluded while inclusivity is the means of including a diverse group of people or groups (“how”). In our research we focused on both aspects: who is excluded and what are the barriers to engagement, and how to promote inclusive participation in living labs. The term “intersectionality” describes the multiple group identities individuals occupy, such as gender and cultural background (Werbner 2013). The combination of multiple social group identities can amplify individual barriers to participation in energy transitions.

The question of diverse participation in the energy transition can be tackled from different angles – as certain social milieus or individual characteristics are significantly less prominently involved (Bögel et al. 2023). We emphasize that women are, for example, not considered a marginalized group or a minority per se. However, as many studies have indicated, women bear more social burdens in modern society and are underrepresented in energy transitions for several reasons (e.g., gender-pay gap, care duties) (Hanke, Guyet, and Feenstra 2021; Schröer 2018; Sovacool 2021). High-income households also play a significant role in the energy transition, though their participation can be complex and sometimes contradictory considering their consumption choices, investments, and political engagement (Carley and Konisky 2020). To reach carbon neutrality, their participation must go beyond simply adopting green technologies and it also involves addressing high-consumption lifestyles and advocating for systemic change. In addition, the legal status of citizenship presents an obstacle to the engagement of individuals with a migrant background, as evidenced by the limitations imposed on them with regard to employment in the energy sector and participation in the voting process. However, the concept of energy citizenship offers alternative avenues for active engagement, such as membership in an energy cooperative or the purchase of an electric vehicle, which are not contingent on legal citizenship status. Nevertheless, the cultural embeddedness of individuals with a migrant background significantly influences their opportunities and constraints in assuming the role of energy citizens, with factors such as language, communication, and social practices playing a pivotal role.

Several studies have addressed the lack of inclusivity and diversity in the living lab context (and energy sector) (Ahmadi et al. 2018; Bögel et al. 2023; Schio et al. 2019; Wrangsten, Ferlander, and Borgström 2022). To confront these findings, it is crucial to recognize the multifaceted nature of inclusivity: it encompasses both procedural and substantive dimensions, meaning it is concerned with both the fairness of the participatory process and the equitable distribution of living lab outcomes (Díaz-Reviriego, Turnhout, and Beck 2019). Several factors may persist as obstacles to achieving social inclusion in living labs (Schio et al. 2019). First, resource asymmetries, such as disparities in financial resources, skills, competencies, or time commitment of citizens and stakeholders may impede effective participation. Second, stakeholders considered essential for successful implementation or greater impact may be inadvertently excluded from living labs. Third, the design and implementation of the living lab may overlook the potential needs of groups outside its immediate focus. This oversight may inadvertently replicate existing power structures within the wider community in living labs, ultimately perpetuating social inequalities and hindering inclusive participation. Finally, time is a critical constraint in living labs, where a thorough understanding of the specific context, stakeholder landscape,
and diverse societal needs demands dedicated time investment (Laborgne et al. 2021; Schäfer, Bergmann, and Theiler 2021).

Accordingly, we build on the conceptual framework by Moore, Riddell, and Vocisano (2015), relating it to inclusivity and diversity. First, *scaling out* refers to reaching out to more or different societal groups, stakeholders, and people, thus increasing diffusion, social learning, and building new partnerships across diverse communities. Second, *scaling deep* relates to establishing inclusive co-creation processes with a variety of stakeholders and participants in an open learning space to build trust and new collaborations that enable the reflection of norms and cultural values. Finally, *scaling up* stresses the importance of overcoming structural barriers hindering inclusivity and diversity in living labs by addressing institutional change. In addition, we identified three localities where inclusivity and diversity play an integral role in living lab impact (Figure 1): within the sociopolitical context, in collaboration with stakeholders, and in public engagement. We differentiate between stakeholders and the general public because there are variances in the collaboration and recruitment in each of these localities. There are also, however, similarities in dissemination and learning.

Specifically, each of these three localities constitutes custom conditions for scaling, which we elaborate on in the next section in more detail. First, the *locality of the sociopolitical context* entails structural barriers to inclusivity and diversity in living lab research, such as time constraints and an overdependency on funding. Second, structural diversity imbalances of the energy and research sectors may transpire into living lab studies, leading to experiments and interventions designed by and for a homogenous social milieu rather than diverse ones. Finally, existing policies, institutions, and regulations can impede the development and scaling of inclusive and sustainable transformation experiments and innovations in living labs. In this sense, scaling up is focused on transferring challenges and learnings hindering inclusivity in living labs and their experiments in policy recommendations to the local or national level.

A literature review by Mbatha and Musango (2022) revealed that end users/participants, industry experts, researchers, and public authorities are the prevalent stakeholders in living labs within the energy context.³ Multi-stakeholder collaboration influences the living lab process in several ways. For instance, at the *stakeholder locality*, partners responsible for co-designing living labs may have different conceptions of sustainability, possess diverse types of knowledge, and reach out to various social groups (scaling deep and scaling out) (Kalinauskaitė et al. 2021). Although information on the diversity of living lab actors is scarce, data from the International Energy Agency (IEA 2025)) points to a persistent gender imbalance in the energy industry as one of the least gender-diverse industries in the world: in 2018 only 20% of energy-sector employees were women, despite representing nearly 40% of the global workforce (IEA 2025). Women's involvement in the research and innovation market stands at 22%, with significant variations across EU countries (European Commission 2024). In

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Locality of inclusivity and diversity in living lab research.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

addition, racial and ethnic minorities comprise only 22% of the workforce in the energy sector, according to an international study by Equal By 30 (2021). From these data, we infer that there will be a lack of representation of women and experts with migrant backgrounds in the design and implementation of living labs unless deliberate action is taken. This raises many issues, including legitimacy, power, and normativity (Laborgne et al. 2021).

In addition, a study by Fritz and Binder (2020) suggests that practitioners and funders exercise structural and discursive power, ultimately shaping overall project frameworks and influencing participation through their roles and resource allocation. Depending on the goal and target group of a particular living lab, it is important to select specific collaborative partners that act as facilitators for social inclusion and scaling (Bird and Barnes 2014). A critical gap in the literature relates to the detailed methods used for stakeholder and end-user recruitment in energy-focused living labs (Mbatha and Musango 2022). While some studies acknowledge voluntary participation or user invitations for technology evaluation based on interest in energy solutions, the specific processes of forming collaboration remain largely underdeveloped and under-reported. Most living labs do not elaborate or reflect on their recruitment process, even though we consider it a core bottleneck for civic engagement. Therefore, scaling deep in the partner locality is about understanding the systematic gender balance, the resource asymmetries, the pathways that the recruitment process creates, and the implications it has for replicating (gender-) inclusive living labs. Scaling out in the stakeholder locality is about creating inclusive, sustainable, and diverse partnerships and developing co-creation processes that enable procedural and normative aspects of inclusivity.

Energy transitions present the population with unequal opportunities for participation, largely due to differences in social, cultural, and economic capital (Bourdieu 1986), which we term the *population locality*. Bourdieu's notion of cultural capital can help explain how different social groups possess varying levels of knowledge, skills, and competencies related to energy technologies and sustainability practices. This variation affects their ability to participate effectively in energy transitions. In other words, it is essential to consider the diversity of abilities of people in society, including different economic levels, cultures, ages, genders, and occupations, and make sure that everyone has a chance and some even have a greater responsibility to engage (scaling deep). These forms of capital are accumulated throughout an individual's life and are possibly inherited from their family background. This significantly influences their capacity to become active in ongoing sustainability changes (e.g., economic capital for investments in renewables). In this context, the participation of others in the energy transition is limited due to practical or material capacities (i.e., disabilities) or should be prioritized more due to their carbon footprint (i.e., high-income households) (scaling out).

While Hossain, Leminen, and Westerlund (2019) describe that participation in living labs can be open to all, implying anyone can participate, it is essential to acknowledge the barriers stemming from unequal capital distribution and any resulting limitations in individual capabilities. For example, an individual with caring duties might lack the time to join a workshop if no childcare service is provided. Therefore, there is a need for critical reflection and deeper understanding of participation in living labs: who participates, under what circumstances, and what outcomes are produced. Addressing these questions is crucial to resolving ambiguities and maximizing the impact and sustainability of living labs (van der Wal 2021), particularly when dealing with topics like the energy transition, which impacts the whole population through activities such as energy-efficiency practices of households or through the establishment of energy communities. Without rigorous examination and a reflexive approach to address these questions, inclusive and equitable participation remains elusive, undermining the procedural legitimacy of living lab experiments.

Incorporating core deliberative principles, such as equal footing, reasoned arguments, common good orientation, respect, consensus building, and sincerity, could effectively complement co-creative participation in living labs (scaling deep) (Sonnberger and Lindner 2021). However, mere attendance does not guarantee a meaningful contribution from all participants, nor their equitable inclusion in the final outcomes (Díaz-Reviriego, Turnhout, and Beck 2019). This challenge is particularly pronounced when dealing with complex issues such as energy transitions. Furthermore, in line with inclusive participation methods, there remains the question of enabling a fair and widely representative
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

decision-making process by citizens to prevent contestation of the legitimacy of the experimental
process and its outcomes (Sonnberger and Lindner 2021). Quick and Feldman' (2011) empirical
research supports the significance of methods facilitating inclusive participation. While their work
acknowledges that specific methods can contribute to inclusivity, they emphasize that the patterns of
these methods, particularly how they are enacted, are crucial factors determining the success and
inclusivity of participatory processes.

We emphasize that these findings may have limited relevance for the design and implementation
of specific living labs. In general, living labs can be inclusive and diverse even when structural issues
exist and no additional attention is paid to their design. However, we find that these aspects are
rarely addressed in a structured manner in living lab research and can therefore lead to biases in
the recruitment of partners and participants, the design of experiments, and the use of methods. As
many living labs test technological innovations, they may attract a certain social milieu of male
technology enthusiasts (Bögel et al. 2023). It is even possible that living labs deliberately recruit
(male) energy pioneers as participants, as they may represent the target market for the implementation
of a specific innovation, for example, smart home applications are often designed by and for men
(Mechlenborg and Gram-Hanssen 2022). In contrast, other living labs target experts or political rep-
resentatives as participants, thus limiting inclusivity in recruitment. Yet, a critical and systematic
reflection of the lack of diversity in living lab research is missing. To correct these situations, living
labs should effectively capture and relate to the intricacies of real-world contexts to generate knowl-
edge of practical significance.

Methodology

The four labs were conducted as part of the EU-project “DIALOGUES,” which aimed to conceptualize and operationalize inclusive pathways to energy citizenship. As the labs focused specifically on energy citizenship, we named them Citizen Action Labs (CALs). The CALs explored different dimensions of energy citizenship in diverse geographical and social contexts, collectively involving 284 participants. They were carried out between 2022 and 2024 in Germany (Berlin), Switzerland (Geneva), Türkiye (Izmir), and Norway (Overhalla), for varying periods, from a few months to more than two years (Table 2). The labs were designed as co-creative processes, fostering collaboration between scientific actors (research teams), local institutional actors (municipalities, associations, and the private sector), local industry, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the local population.

Regarding the core characteristics of living labs, namely contribution to sustainable transformation, experiments as a methodological approach, transdisciplinary research mode, long-term orientation, scalability and transferability, reflection, and learning processes, the four concurrent CALs fit all these characteristics to different degrees (Schäpke et al. 2018). In our understanding, CALs are a form of living lab, which “bring together interdisciplinary experts to develop, deploy and test – in real living environments – new technologies and design strategies that respond to this changing world” (Manzini and Rizzo 2011). Compared to testbeds, they do not see the people involved as observed subjects for testing equipment in a defined context but rather focus on value creation by jointly exploring emerging ideas, innovative concepts, and related artifacts in a social space of self-reflexive experimental learning (Engels, Wentland, and Pfotenhauer 2019). The methodologies used, as different as they may be, all have in common the active participation of people, practitioners, and researchers, involving relevant stakeholders and especially the local population at an early stage in a co-creation process. Notably, and excepting the Norwegian case, we believe that the CALs meet only some of the quality criteria characterizing more rigorous and purposeful living labs. Due to their low degree of experimental interventions and short-term orientation, our approach is more akin to a living lab project (Beecroft et al. 2018). The next section provides a brief overview of the specific focus of each CAL.

The *Berlin CAL* focused on diverse participation in energy production. After a year-long planning and co-design process between the CAL partners, the project team implemented a series of formats such as workshops, focus groups, and training sessions, as well as interventions in Berlin's largest energy cooperative. One of the main outputs was focus groups targeting different social communities – students
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>**Table 2.** Overview of the DIALOGUES Citizen Action Labs.</figcaption></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Living lab</th><th>Goal</th><th>Partners</th><th>Notion of diversity</th><th>Time and formats</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Berlin CAL</td><td><ul><li>Tackling barriers faced by different social groups currently underrepresented in energy cooperatives or energy production in general (e.g., women, people with a migrant background, or students)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Research: Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research</li><li>Citizen initiative: energy cooperative "BürgerEnergie Berlin"</li><li>NGO: GenderCC</li><li>Associated partners: Yesil Cember and Nour Energy (NGOs for intercultural sustainability)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Socio-demographic diversity in energy production (prosumers, energy cooperatives, and communities)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>1/2022-9/2023</li><li>Co-creation phase with partners</li><li>Survey within Berlin's largest energy cooperative</li><li>10/2023-01/2024</li><li>Three focus groups with underrepresented social groups</li><li>Training workshop on balcony modules</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Geneva CAL</td><td><ul><li>Creating spaces and opportunities for the local population to experiment with energy citizenship as a practice, and deliver climate-action plans</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Research: University of Geneva</li><li>Civil-society partners: citizen collectives and community members</li><li>Local government: Mayor's offices</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>The "hard-to-reach" group consisted of the privileged populations living in wealthy communes with a high carbon footprint and, thus, high energy-saving potential.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>11/2021-8/2022</li><li>Co-creation phase with citizens and municipalities</li><li>9/2022-1/2023</li><li>Five citizen events with different foci</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Izmir CAL</td><td><ul><li>Identification of viable pathways to energy citizenship, ranking motivators and barriers toward energy citizenship, co-creating solutions to alleviate barriers toward energy citizenship, and identifying policy suggestions to improve energy citizenship</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Research: Izmir University of Economics</li><li>Local government: Izmir Metropolitan Municipality</li><li>Civil-society partner: Sustainable Urban Development Network</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Reflect on different perspectives of actors with varying roles since energy citizenship involves all segments of society in the energy system.</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>6/2022-9/2022</li><li>Co-creative planning process with partners</li><li>10/2022</li><li>Workshop with different target groups</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Overhalla CAL</td><td><ul><li>Understanding different forms of participation in the rural community</li><li>How these forms of participation could be used for more active engagement in the energy transition</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Research: Norwegian University of Science and Technology</li><li>Local industry: Skogmo Industrial Park with business sector representatives and young professionals</li><li>Local government: Overhalla municipality</li><li>Civil-society partner: social champions (a group of women particularly engaged in the community's social development and well-being)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Diversity of stakeholders involved, embeddedness in the local community, focusing on the attractiveness of rural areas, and the housing sector</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>10/2021-9/2022</li><li>Preparatory activities, including meetings, relationship-building efforts, and participation in local events</li><li>10/2022-1/2023</li><li>Workshop for young professionals</li><li>Microhouse development</li><li>Interviews, workshops, and focus groups with various local actors</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>

and young people, people with migrant backgrounds (with or without legal citizenship status), and women/gender minorities – all of whom face different barriers to participation in the energy transition. In addition, Berlin's largest energy cooperative, BürgerEnergie Berlin, experimented with various forms of intervention, such as introducing people trained in gender-awareness to events, testing new ways of communicating their mission, and embedding gender and diversity in their terms of service.

The *Geneva CAL* strengthened the participation of local residents in the energy transition by creating spaces and occasions for the local population to experiment with alternative and “new” practices of energy citizenship. It supported people in the co-production of a local climate action plan – with actions that citizens could contribute to directly and collectively – aligned with existing objectives of energy activities in the area. The question of “diversity” in Geneva was purposefully provocative. Rather than focusing solely on underprivileged groups, the research team aimed to work with “busy, rich people” from the outset – individuals who are also “hard-to-reach” but have a significant role to play in the global energy transition. The overarching outcome of the living lab was to formulate a climate-action plan created by and for the local population.
The *Izmir CAL* was a citizen-centered activity that sought to develop first-hand knowledge of participants' perceptions of “energy” in everyday life. In this respect, the project team focused on three target groups: citizens/individuals, representatives of NGOs, and policymakers. At different stages of the CAL, participants were encouraged to express their opinions, do individual work, participate in group collaborations, take part in discussions, generate ideas, and document their perceptions in the workshops. In addition, they were encouraged to share their experiences with each other on the selected themes, motivating factors, barriers, inter- and intra-social processes, internal (individual), and external (social and community) factors.

The *Overhalla CAL* contributed to local solutions for more sustainable place development in Norway, with a particular emphasis on energy consumption. The focus was on people's lives – work, home, and leisure – to examine different types of work opportunities, housing types, and different local initiatives, including, in particular, social meeting places such as *Frivillighuset* (“the voluntary house”), a central building where many elderly citizens spend time engaged in cultural activities, crafts, games, or just have a cup of coffee. A notable feature was the commitment from both local industry and the community to develop new, energy-efficient housing that met the aspirations of young professionals in the area. The first of two processes was the conceptualization and subsequent creation of a new housing unit that specifically addressed the shortcomings of local housing identified in the CAL activities. The second was the expressed interest of local representatives and companies in developing the CAL further, but in this case, focusing on the regional setting in Namdalen (the valley in which Overhalla is located) and involving all six municipalities in a joint effort. Local companies and the municipalities supported the two processes. Perhaps most interestingly, the industry in Overhalla is currently planning to implement the project as a not-for-profit venture, seeing the need and value of attracting young people to the area as greater than any profits that might be made from direct sales to homeowners.

The four CALs were designed to address the issue of inclusivity by investigating the barriers that underrepresented or marginalized groups face in the energy transition, working with partners related to these groups, or targeting hard-to-reach groups such as participants in the living lab formats. For each CAL, the project team sent all participants a recruitment survey before and after the lab engagement. The survey (N=119) helped to collect data on individual perceptions and attitudes toward the energy transition, as well as sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (Table A.1). To ensure data consistency across the CALs, the local research teams used a standardized reporting template. Based on this report and the data from the recruitment survey, we analyzed each CAL with respect to its scaling strategy, including the lab's impact in terms of creating sustainable change, contributing to inclusivity, transferring political lessons at the local and national level, fostering regional and sectoral dissemination, and enabling qualitative and quantitative involvement of partners and individuals. In addition, the report captured information about the methods, formats, and strategies used in the co-creation phase and during public events to enable inclusive participation and knowledge exchange.

While we draw evidence from the different CALs to illustrate the relevance of inclusivity and diversity for the scalability – and ultimately the impact – of energy-relevant living labs, we are not engaging in a strict comparative approach: it is the overall learnings from the cases that interest us, more than the learnings between the cases. In summary, this approach allows for exploring different strategies for scaling living labs in terms of diversity and inclusivity and highlights the multitude of approaches to connect inclusivity and scaling. However, the high heterogeneity of the CALs and the lack of standardized definitions and methods make it difficult to generalize findings. The question of diversity is often highly dependent on the local and national context (i.e., share and culture of migrant population, gender policies, and intercultural consultation services).

## Results

In the results section, we discuss the three modes of scaling in relation to inclusivity and diversity in living lab research and elaborate on them across the four cases. First, we explore how structural factors within the sociopolitical context influence the degree of inclusivity and diversity that is evident in the field of living lab research (scaling up). Second, we look closer at the role of stakeholder networks
<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

(scaling out) and their contribution to fostering a culture of co-creation and knowledge sharing (scaling deep). Finally, we discuss the means of inclusive participation (scaling deep) and reaching out to socially diverse groups by reflecting on the recruitment process of living labs (scaling out).

Scaling up: structural factors in the sociopolitical context influencing inclusivity and diversity
in living labs

Our analysis revealed structural barriers to inclusivity and diversity within living lab research and practice. For example, the inherent structures of implementation-partner organizations inadvertently affect the design of living labs. As researchers, practitioners, and funders strongly influence the initial design and often lack diversity themselves, there is a risk of replicating existing stakeholder groups in developing experiments, interventions, and sustainable practices. A siloed approach of living labs to sustainability issues, which largely focuses on technological solutions through a narrow lens of disciplinary expertise, often creates blind spots, particularly concerning socioeconomic inequalities and equitable institutions. As a result, diversity of perspectives and inclusivity are significantly hampered. To tackle this challenge, implementing gender training and diversity policies within research institutes, energy companies, and government agencies is crucial, including work-life balance initiatives, comprehensive anti-discrimination policies, and gender-sensitive working environments. Such measures could empower underrepresented groups to actively participate in various aspects of the energy transition.

The CALs implemented in Berlin, Geneva, Izmir, and Overhalla provided empirical evidence that working with municipalities can improve the diversity of participation in living labs as well. Municipalities often have the capacity to provide key infrastructure and resources, such as public spaces, buildings, or even entire neighborhoods, to serve as sites for transdisciplinary research projects. They can also use their local authority to adapt regulatory and administrative frameworks to encourage greater diversity of engagement within the energy system. A practical example is the Senate of Berlin's local funding scheme to incentivize the installation of balcony solar panels, thereby encouraging wider public participation in energy production. The Senate even established a fund to cover the investment costs for tenants as a way to support lower-income households. However, it is crucial to recognize that local initiatives operate within a multi-layered policy landscape, with a majority of energy-system regulations set at the national or European level. This potential disparity can lead to political tensions, while overarching regulations may constrain local efforts. For example, a major obstacle to installing balcony solar panels in Berlin was a nationwide regulation mandating a pre-commissioning inspection by a licensed electrician, with waiting lists of up to nine months that could hinder adoption. However, as Bauknecht and Kubeczko (2024) advocate, regulatory experimentation can be a key driver of structural change and regulatory learning by deliberately deviating from the existing highly regulated setting to try out new (and more just) rules.

Finally, external factors such as time and space constraints have a significant impact on the ability of a living lab to fully integrate diversity as a core research principle. Our own experience highlights the time-intensive nature of the co-creation process with local stakeholders, particularly in the context of defining the objectives of the living lab. In the Geneva CAL, civic participants even concluded that reduced work time is a necessary structural change that could enable people to become more invested in energy-citizenship activities. However, this investment of time – by the research team and participants – proved crucial in establishing a shared framework and greater understanding of specific problems, formats, and potential solutions across all four CALs. The question of space relates to the physical need for people to meet and organize in publicly accessible spaces, but also to the sites that are available for implementing energy projects, such as the installation of renewable energy resources (i.e., on public buildings). In summary, funders and research teams in living labs should be aware of the inherent structural barriers related to inclusivity and diversity when designing their projects and innovations. These initiatives can also serve as a showcase for exploring the diffusion of new technologies and practices within diverse social contexts to formulate policy recommendations that challenge current institutional settings in terms of diversity.
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

Scaling deep and out: learning about the multitude of sustainability approaches by extending stakeholder networks

The following section is divided into two parts. In a first step, we analyze the role and skills of stakeholders to reflect the interplay between inclusivity and diversity with the culture of living lab research. In a second step, we explore the possibilities of diversifying stakeholder networks with a focus on the potential to attain diverse narratives and reach out to a broader social demographic.

* Scaling deep: understanding the culture of stakeholders and their influence on the co-creation process

Living labs are intended to serve as environments that enable collaboration between diverse stakeholder groups united by common goals. Practice partners share specialized knowledge relevant to the lab's focus area, such as technical expertise or a deep understanding of the local context. They also use their established networks to facilitate communication channels, recruit participants, and network with other stakeholders. Ensuring greater stakeholder diversity within living labs entails a wide range of goals, including diversification of knowledge, networks, sectors, and skills. In the context of inclusive collaboration, many living labs prioritize working with various implementation partners spanning numerous sectors to integrate their expertise and skills (see Campos and Marín-González 2023).

From the perspectives of inclusivity and diversity, the selection of stakeholders and project partners served four key functions: First, they provided valuable insights regarding perceptions, barriers, and potential solutions related to diverse and inclusive participation – both generally and specifically in the energy context. Second, stakeholders have knowledge and experience communicating complex issues effectively to diverse audiences. Third, these stakeholders had direct links to specific social groups, policymakers, and other relevant social networks, connections that served as valuable channels for outreach. Finally, they brought crucial “soft skills” to the lab, such as language interpretation and moderation expertise. In all four CALs, the selection and recruitment of implementation partners ensured that at least one of these functions was fulfilled within the lab. In particular, the municipalities served a unique role as legal and administrative facilitators by defining the local conditions that could ultimately allow different forms of energy citizenship to flourish.

For example, in the Geneva case, four different municipalities were involved in the CAL, and each one was quite diverse in terms of its expectations and the support representatives brought to the process. More specifically, the Geneva CAL promoted a distinct partnership structure, consisting mainly of a citizen collective from the municipalities of Collonge-Bellerive, Meinier, Vandœuvres, and Choulex. The partners played a central role from the beginning of the project, actively collaborating with the research team in all phases of the co-design and co-creation of the CAL and bringing in their own starting points for energy citizenship. Their contributions went beyond active participation in associated events. The partners shared responsibility with the research team for critical project activities, including design, outreach, participant recruitment, event logistics, and the dissemination of research findings. This way, the partners were empowered to take over leadership for their ideas for active energy citizenship that they carried out even after the CAL ended. In addition, the research team adopted a transparent approach to resource allocation, co-determining the budget with civic partners through an open-access online spreadsheet, thereby fostering a collaborative decision-making process. In addition, to ensure the representation of different perspectives on each thematic area – energy, food, waste, mobility, and so forth – the Geneva CAL invited a range of experts from various sectors to participate in relevant CAL events.

A critical factor in the success of the Overhalla CAL was the establishment of a close working relationship with the local industrial park. This successful collaboration stemmed from preexisting trust and a shared knowledge base built upon a long-standing relationship between a particular researcher and a representative of a local firm. Significantly, the focus of the CAL went beyond energy citizenship toward a more holistic conceptualization of sustainable citizenship. This broader notion included not only energy-related issues but also social, economic, cultural, and environmental aspects, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the environment and the local community. Several official and
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

unofficial structures and networks were already in place before the CAL started, which strongly contributed to its impact. For instance, social inclusion was facilitated through a vast number of social and sports initiatives, which constituted a significant portion of the networks and structures in place. By investigating opportunities to combine social spaces, such as shared neighborhood facilities and activities, with housing and workplaces, the CAL aimed to increase awareness of energy citizenship and create more room for sustainable, low-emission lifestyles in rural areas. Utilizing participatory strategies to involve local citizens, with knowledge of local potentials and challenges, is an alternative route to develop context-sensitive solutions instead of externally developed one-size-fits-none interventions. Albeit hard to document, the CAL focused on the importance of these networks and relationships, which would likely have increased their status and perceived importance. Networks are, however, always personal, and gender, age, profession, and migrant status affected which structures and networks were available to different inhabitants in the community. The researchers conducted informal interviews to deepen their understanding of the problem perceptions, networks, and values of the local population, and to grasp the challenges and opportunities of Overhalla as a place to live.

Overall, reflecting on the expertise, values, and roles of the partners in all four CALs served as a critical point for understanding their contribution to the creation of an inclusive living lab (scaling deep). By enabling shared resource allocation, building long-term relationships that went beyond the specific interests of the partners, and focusing more on the needs of the local community, the research team, stakeholders, and involved citizens were able to overcome some of the existing barriers to inclusive collaboration.

* Scaling out: reaching out to diverse communities through the facilitator approach

Within the CALs, the research team prioritized the engagement of stakeholders and communities with limited previous expertise in transdisciplinary research projects, or nonacademic partners with no prior experience engaging in living labs. The researchers considered collectively with possible implementation partners and members of the local population the composition of the transition team, recognizing the significant impact on the project's success. The CALs provided valuable lessons in this regard. For example, the Berlin CAL organized a focus group with *Yesil Cember* (Green Circle) – an organization working to raise awareness and mobilize Turkish-speaking people in Germany to protect the environment – to explore pathways to energy prosumerism within Berlin's Turkish migrant community. This collaboration was crucial due to the limitations of the German research team in directly reaching out to the Turkish population. The cultural and linguistic differences – being outside their peer group and unfamiliar with their preferred communication styles and channels – initially hindered engagement in the CAL. Native speakers attending the events ultimately played a critical role in translating technical terminology. As energy prosumerism demands financial investment, building trust and a common understanding with participants is paramount. During the focus groups, many participants expressed skepticism about the benefits of energy cooperatives and the financing of balcony solar panels. However, *Yesil Cember*'s role as facilitator and mediator proved instrumental in overcoming this gap and increasing the legitimacy of existing measures.

Similar to the Berlin CAL, the Izmir and Geneva CALs adopted a “facilitator approach” to public engagement. In Izmir, the involvement of *mukhtars* (local decision-makers) proved particularly important due to their inherent ability to connect with residents in particular neighborhoods. As the closest administrative unit to the local population, *mukhtars* serve as a direct communication channel and were able to mobilize residents to change their behavior concerning energy use by employing their vacuum cleaners in minimum energy mode, installing smart sockets, and using automatic curtain-closing systems on sunny days. Consequently, *mukhtars* have the potential to bridge the communication gap between citizens and public authorities. This potential was exemplified by several *mukhtars* expressing their commitment to initiate energy-saving projects focused on education and information dissemination within their communities. In addition, the implementation partners in both Izmir and Geneva actively maintained open communication channels with potential female participants to encourage their active participation throughout the recruitment process.
Integrating diversity within transdisciplinary projects presents a significant challenge that necessitates the formation of a proficient team of implementation partners. Civic initiatives in CALs often harbor expectations regarding the capabilities of local governments and research institutions that may exceed their actual financial and operational capacities. Nonetheless, a critical factor contributing to the successful participation of implementation partners is the provision of financial resources to cover personnel costs.

Scaling deep and out: broadening the social discourse on sustainable transformation

The section on the population locality is divided into two parts. The first section explores the methodological approaches for increasing inclusive participation when designing and implementing living labs. The second section concentrates on the recruitment process as a bottleneck for diverse participation.

* Scaling deep: meaningful participation of the population

As discussed above, recruiting hard-to-reach groups for living labs poses a significant challenge. However, deploying appropriate research methods is an equally large obstacle. A scoping review by Bronson, Devkota, and Nguyen (2021) highlights the dominance of qualitative methods in living labs, such as interviews, participatory and action research, case studies, and surveys, compared to quantitative methods. Qualitative approaches are generally recognized in research as more open to exploring and integrating different perspectives (Bansal and Corley 2011). With this in mind, the CALs relied primarily on focus groups, community forums, interviews, stakeholder workshops, and training sessions. Given the variety of research methods, it was important in the overall project to choose methods that considered the contrasting preferences of participants. The project teams strategically combined written participation methods (worksheets), collaborative sessions (group work), and interactive sessions (user experience) to address individual comfort levels with public speaking. In our CALs, the research teams actively monitored whether women and other groups had an equal voice during each session through speaker lists and timekeeping. When a research team identified imbalances, the moderator tried adjusting the workshop process in real time to increase inclusivity.

While research methods are crucial factors, the success of a living lab environment often depends equally on its temporal (daytime, weekdays) and spatial aspects (the setting). The Berlin CAL exemplified this by explicitly analyzing both temporal and spatial suitability for each focus group, allowing for tailored approaches. Recognizing the importance of family participation, both the Berlin and Geneva CALs offered childcare services, which participants highly valued. In addition, in the Berlin CAL, the valuable insights of *Yesil Cember*, as discussed above, were used to adapt the catering for the Turkish community focus group. By providing culturally appropriate food, such as *simit* (circular bread) instead of *pretzel*, the organizers demonstrated an appreciation for the social and cultural backgrounds of the participants.

* Scaling out: recruitment of participants from diverse communities

The research team conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify underrepresented or marginalized groups within the energy sector (GenderCC 2024). This investigation informed the development of targeted recruitment strategies, ensuring that the perspectives of these groups were given particular attention while maintaining open participation. The target demographics for each CAL showed a degree of flexibility. For example, the Overhalla CAL initially focused on gender representation. However, given the significant barriers they faced in securing sustainable and attractive housing options in rural areas, it subsequently shifted its recruitment efforts to young men. Both the Overhalla and Izmir CALs utilized strategic partnerships with local industry and community organizations to facilitate the recruitment of participants from the local population. In addition, they prioritized the promotion of inclusive engagement within CALs by carefully balancing the gender
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

representation of participants. Meanwhile, the co-creation phase of the Berlin and Geneva CALs placed strong emphasis especially on developing robust recruitment strategies. In addition, both CALs had a notable gender focus and implemented formats specifically designed to function as safe spaces for participants, as well as to allow them to exchange their own experiences of discrimination and create opportunities to receive empowerment.

The Geneva CAL engaged with the challenge of recruiting participants from high-income groups, a demographic known for its low participation rates in public forums, research projects, and the energy transition, despite its significant contribution to carbon emissions. Initially, the research team attempted to engage ultra-high-net-worth individuals who are considered the global financial elite and, on average, possess investable assets of more than US$30 million. This effort proved unsuccessful, likely due to privacy concerns. The research team decided instead to focus on municipal governments that represent higher-income populations and to achieve diverse representation within these identified communities. The recruitment process involved five distinct methods: (1) outreach through the implementation partners and their existing networks, including citizen collectives in each municipality and by respective municipal authorities; (2) targeted advertising at community events and in public spaces; (3) directed mailings through the postal service reaching 4,053 households; (4) digital outreach through social media platforms; and (5) email communication using existing contact lists. The research team hosted several events with the citizen collective and municipalities, each time attracting approximately 30 to 40 people. Maintaining consistent communication both pre- and post-events was crucial to generating sustained public awareness (“noise”) around the CAL. This strategy resulted in an unanticipated but positive “ripple effect” – as the Geneva project team called it – with an additional 10–15 new people joining a core group at each event, thus achieving greater outreach over time.

The Geneva and Berlin CALs adapted their associated materials to foster an inclusive recruitment process and addressed potential communication complexities. Flyers were designed to be eye-catching and jargon-free, providing minimal details about the event's content and inviting anyone to participate in a sustainability discussion (prior knowledge of the topic was not required). The Berlin CAL developed enlistment materials explicitly tailored for both digital and face-to-face settings. By deliberately avoiding the usage of renewable energy as a central theme in these resources, the CAL partners acknowledged that women might be more attracted to the broader topic of sustainability than to energy-specific issues, such as organic nutrition or nature conservation (Karytsas and Theodoropoulou 2014). The Berlin research team strategically selected recruitment locations frequented by their target groups and used a variety of channels (flyers, emails, face-to-face communication, and posts on eBay classifieds). For example, researchers approached mothers at playgrounds to inform them of the childcare services available during the workshop to encourage attendance.

The inclusion of monetary incentives played an important role in the Berlin outreach strategy, particularly considering the additional financial burdens many potential participants faced. During the co-creation design phase of the living lab, discussions centered on different strategies to motivate public engagement beyond intrinsic interest in the energy transition. To encourage wider participation, the research team decided to introduce financial incentives in the form of cash payments for attendees. This determination was based on the belief that people deserve compensation for their time and effort in research projects, similar to the remuneration received by researchers and collaborating stakeholders. Payments as an incentive gave participants complete control over how they used the money, thus avoiding any potential perception of patronage. Moreover, a recent rise in inflation, a development particularly affecting low-income households, reinforced the rationale for offering cash to address participants' specific needs.

To further enhance the effectiveness of recruitment, the research team in all four CALs used a data-driven approach. When registering for CAL events, participants were asked to provide demographic information, such as gender and age; these data were then analyzed to identify and filter target groups. In the end, this showed that the outreach process for living labs tends to be significantly influenced by two key factors: the geographic location of the lab and the socioeconomic background of the surrounding community (embeddedness). Recruitment strategies must be adapted in such contexts to effectively consider these constraints.
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Discussion

In summary, the findings demonstrate that diversity is entrenched in various localities, including the sociopolitical context, stakeholders, and the individual characteristics of the local population. A key lesson of our research is that scaling deep and scaling out can be conflicting strategies within a single living lab, depending on its goal. While some labs focus on reaching more users or diverse communities, others need to develop or understand the values and norms behind their experiments to decide what and how to scale their impact. In this sense, our empirical findings also suggest that not every lab needs to be inclusive of all social groups, but that setting up diverse labs targeting different hard-to-reach groups is an effective way forward. This would imply an overall reflection on recruitment strategies and systematic diversification of living lab research in general. Furthermore, reciprocal interactions exist between a living lab and the sociopolitical context (scaling up). On one hand, inherent imbalances, funding structures, time limitations, and abilities to learn about the local conditions of experiments influence the embeddedness and possibility for inclusivity of transdisciplinary research. In this sense, the four CALs offer insights into two key lessons regarding the co-creation of knowledge and social justice in the energy transition.

First, we contend that those engaged in living lab and sustainability research should devote greater attention to how knowledge is created, shared, and legitimized. A recent European Parliament (2023) study indicated that the population is increasingly inclined to view online news platforms and social media channels as primary sources of information. In light of these considerations, it is essential to comprehend how knowledge and discourse surrounding climate change disseminate, evolve, and ultimately culminate in action among the general public, whether in the form of energy citizenship or in the “decision” not to participate. Social media has resulted in a greater fragmentation of narratives on climate change. Consequently, individuals who do not engage with the topic online are becoming increasingly excluded from discussions due to how algorithms function. To achieve a scalable impact, it is essential to gain an understanding of the diverse narratives associated with sustainability, particularly those that exist beyond the confines of the so-called “green bubble” – social milieus that are intrinsically motivated and financially equipped to act on climate change. After three decades of intensive climate science, the knowledge base regarding climate change has never been greater. This is particularly true with regard to the most effective strategies for addressing climate change, which should prioritize a global transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and, therefore, active energy citizenship. It seems reasonable to assume that we have now reached a point where those who have not yet acted in the energy transition can offer more valuable insights about why it has not been more successful than those who have done so. Given the evolving landscape of information-sharing, knowledge creation, and social interaction, we posit that living labs and other transdisciplinary initiatives can serve as a conduit for reviving diverse discourse between disparate social groups in real-life settings and contribute to higher acceptance and ownership of the energy transition. When designed with a commitment to inclusivity and diversity, living labs can become a vital approach for bridging the implementation gaps of energy citizenship or even the energy transition in general between scientific, political, and societal realms.

Second, while energy citizenship offers a multitude of avenues for involvement in the energy transition, we assert that a silent majority has, for an extended period, indirectly financed the energy transition through taxation, yet never directly benefited from it. The assertion that the energy transition is an elite project is, to some extent, substantiated by empirical data regarding the installation of solar power plants and the recipients of subsidies for electric vehicles (Radtke and Ohlhorst 2021; Sovacool and Brisbois 2019). A significant proportion of the population, including tenants and individuals from marginalized social groups such as women, those with a migrant background, low-income households, and many others, have encountered greater obstacles to engaging with and profiting from the energy transition than those who own a house or possess the financial means to purchase an electric vehicle. For these reasons, we argue that living labs contribute to the problem of exclusion when designed with the expectation that citizens will engage in transdisciplinary research projects due to their interest in the topic and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, we value establishing more
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

deliberative mechanisms for participation in the energy transition, with varied and better-targeted
recruitment strategies and remuneration for participation (i.e., climate councils). It is imperative that
living labs develop specific recruitment strategies that prioritize the inclusion of specific social groups
to reach an overall more diverse perspective of living lab research. Implementing ethical standards
and inclusive practices facilitates the establishment of trust and ensures that all participants feel a
sense of value. Transdisciplinary research projects can be scaled up and have a greater impact if they
prioritize measures for inclusive participation. Because in the long run, the successful implementation
of the concept of energy citizenship will require the active engagement of the majority of the world's
population.

Conclusion

The discourse on energy transitions and transdisciplinary research more generally has shifted signifi-
cantly in recent years. While the last two decades have witnessed a fervent focus on technological
development – to switch from fossil fuels to a climate-neutral system (e.g., electric cars, smart meters,
and solar power plants), a renewed emphasis on the social implications of sustainable transformation
has emerged. Widespread public adoption of these technologies is essential to meet local, national,
and international climate targets. This will require expanding outreach efforts to engage more citizens
and a larger portion of the population than have been engaged until now. This article argues that
promoting inclusivity and diversity by introducing scalability strategies across living labs offers a
viable way forward. We present three key localities of scalability for living labs: addressing structural
barriers for inclusivity and diversity on the sociopolitical context level (scaling up), collaborating with
diverse partners and stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding of inclusive participation (scaling
deep/out), and reaching out to more people by reflecting on recruitment processes and developing
criteria for meaningful participation (scaling deep/out).

Integrating inclusivity and diversity into and across living labs promotes openness to a wider range of perspectives from participants and stakeholders. The collaborative co-production of knowledge and practice may foster legitimacy for sustainable transformation efforts. It is up to researchers to explore what auxiliary conditions, such as the choice of the topic or political embeddedness, can contribute to increasing inclusive and diverse effects in living lab research. Thus, it is important to recognize the historical contributions of diverse actors – including those traditionally underrepresented – to the advancement of renewable energy. However, the public perception of the energy transition as a “green elite project” highlights the need to address social groups that have been excluded. Recent crises like the war in Ukraine and the rise in inflation have further fueled uncertainty about climate change and the energy transition among many people. Therefore, we advocate for a shift in research toward engaging not only intrinsically motivated stakeholders and citizens but also people who are “hard-to-reach.” This objective requires sustained commitment from the living labs community and stakeholders, as fostering diverse actors’ participation is challenging. To achieve this aim, funding agencies must implement programs that support these efforts by integrating sociodemographic indicators for participants in transdisciplinary research projects and empowering cooperation with stakeholders that have not yet been previously prevalent in the energy transition (e.g., mosques, women’s organizations, family centers, and sports or leisure clubs).

Future research efforts could examine the emergence of new forms of injustice and power imbal-
ances stemming from the energy transition. These inquiries could explore how transdisciplinary
research projects, which go beyond replicating existing structures, can contribute to overcoming such
challenges. In addition, all stakeholders should focus more on developing and implementing inclusivity
strategies not only within living labs but also on energy communities and cooperatives. Building on
the foundation of our energy-focused living labs, further research could explore the role of inclusivity
within transdisciplinary research projects in different sectors, including nutrition, urban, and mobility
transitions.
## Notes

1. In constitutional law, citizenship refers to a person's legal rights, responsibilities, and privileges in relation to the state. In the energy system, however, there is no entity that grants citizenship; rather, the concept of citizenship implies active participation in an energy system and awareness of energy issues. In this sense, citizenship refers to the engagement of all citizens in energy-related issues concerning the society in which they are living, irrespective of their actual nationality or civil status, moving beyond the role of passive consumers to become engaged and informed stakeholders in energy systems (Biresselioglu et al. 2024).

2. The MLP is a framework used to analyze socio-technical transitions, such as the shift to sustainable technologies or innovations (Geels 2002, 2010). It conceptualizes transitions as occurring across three levels: the niche, the socio-technical regime, and the socio-technical landscape. The niche is where radical innovations emerge (Schot 1998). These innovations are often protected from mainstream market pressures and can develop without immediate competition from established technologies. The socio-technical regime represents the dominant practices, rules, and technologies that currently prevail in a particular sector. It is characterized by stability and resistance to change, which can make it challenging for new innovations to break through (Smith, Voß, and Grin 2010). The socio-technical landscape encompasses broader societal, economic, and environmental factors that influence both niches and regimes. Changes at this level, such as shifts in public opinion or policy, can create pressures that facilitate transitions. The MLP is used to understand how these levels interact and influence the success or failure of technological transitions (Van den Bosch and Rotmans 2008).

3. Dvarioniene et al. (2015, 514) define stakeholder participation as "a process of involving everybody who takes an interest (or "stake") in a project to foster its acceptance, get contribution and support as well as manage possible conflicts and oppositions." As noted by Mbatha and Musango (2022), the roles of stakeholders involved in living labs may differ: While universities and research institutes frequently offer methodological assistance in living lab projects, public institutions may serve as financiers or problem owners. Consequently, the influence of stakeholders on the design, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the living lab may turn out differently. In addition, citizens may also be regarded as stakeholders in living labs, although this is frequently contingent on their status as end-users or as a source of public opinion. While definitions are not fixed, it is reasonable to distinguish between stakeholders and citizens, between those representing organized groups and individuals with no affiliation, because both categories of involvement are a persistent feature of government programs and there are differences in how these roles tend to manifest in deliberative processes (Kahane et al. 2013).

## Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

## Funding

This work was part of the DIALOGUES project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under [grant number 101022585].

## ORCID

Julia Epp http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4368-9342

## References

Ahmadi, M., A. Weibert, C. Ogonowski, K. Aal, K. Gäckle, N. Marsden, and V. Wulf. 2018. "Challenges and Lessons Learned by Applying Living Labs in Gender and IT Contexts." *Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Gender & IT - GenderIT* 18: 239–249. doi:10.1145/3196839.3196878.

Augenstein, K., B. Bachmann, M. Egermann, V. Hermelingmeier, A. Hilger, M. Jaeger-Erben, A. Kessler, et al. 2020. "From Niche to Mainstream: The Dilemmas of Scaling up Sustainable Alternatives." *GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 29 (3): 143–147. doi:10.14512/gaia.29.3.3.

Bansal, P., and K. Corley. 2011. "The Coming of Age for Qualitative Research: Embracing the Diversity of Qualitative Methods." *Academy of Management Journal* 54 (2): 233–237. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60262792.

Bauknecht, D., and K. Kubeczko. 2024. "Regulatory Experiments and Real-World Labs: A Fruitful Combination for Sustainability." *GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 33 (1): 44–50. doi:10.14512/gaia.33.S1.7.

Beecroft, R., H. Trenks, R. Rhodius, C. Benighaus, and O. Parodi. 2018. "Reallabore als Rahmen transformativer und transdisziplinärer Forschung: Ziele und Designprinzipien (Real-World Laboratories as a Framework
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

for Transformative and Transdisciplinary Research: Goals and Design Principles)." In *Transdisziplinär und transformativ forschen* (Transdisciplinary and Transformative Research), edited by R. Defila and A. Di Giulio, 75-100. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

Bird, C., and J. Barnes. 2014. "Scaling up Community Activism: The Role of Intermediaries in Collective Approaches to Community Energy." *People, Place and Policy Online* 8 (3): 208-221. doi:10.3351/ppp.0008.0003.0006.

Biresselioglu, M., M. Demir, B. Solak, Z. Savas, A. Kollmann, B. Kirchler, and B. Ozcureci. 2024. "Empowering Energy Citizenship: Exploring Dimensions and Drivers in Citizen Engagement during the Energy Transition." *Energy Reports* 11: 1894-1909. doi:10.1016/j.egyr.2024.01.040.

Bögel, P., H. Trenks, P. Upham, H. Sauter, M. Albiez, V. Stelzer, and P. Laborgne. 2023. "Diversifying Power in Action: A Socio-Psychological Approach to Inclusive Energy Transition Experiments." *Energy Research & Social Science* 100: 103070. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103070.

Bohan, S., E. Tippmann, J. Levie, J. Igoe, and B. Bowers. 2024. "What is Scaling?" *Journal of Business Venturing* 39 (1): 106355. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2023.106355.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. "The Forms of Capital." In *Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education*, edited by J. Richard, 241-258. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Bouwma, I., S. Wigboldus, J. Potters, T. Selnes, S. Van Rooij, and J. Westerink. 2022. "Sustainability Transitions and the Contribution of Living Labs: A Framework to Assess Collective Capabilities and Contextual Performance." *Sustainability* 14 (23): 15628. doi:10.3390/su142315628.

Bronson, K., R. Devkota, and V. Nguyen. 2021. "Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs." *Sustainability* 13 (2): 502. doi:10.3390/su13020502.

Campos, I., M. Brito, D. De Souza, A. Santino, G. Luz, and D. Pera. 2022. "Structuring the Problem of an Inclusive and Sustainable Energy Transition – A Pilot Study." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 365: 132763. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132763.

Campos, I., and E. Marín-González. 2023. "Renewable Energy Living Labs through the Lenses of Responsible Innovation: Building an Inclusive, Reflexive, and Sustainable Energy Transition." *Journal of Responsible Innovation* 10 (1): 2213145. doi:10.1080/23299460.2023.2213145.

Carley, S., and D. Konisky. 2020. "The Justice and Equity Implications of the Clean Energy Transition." *Nature Energy* 5 (8): 569-577. doi:10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6.

Cellina, F., R. Castri, M. Diethart, T. Höflehner, N. Da Schio, and M. Dijk. 2018. "Constraints on Upscaling and Social Inclusion in Smart City Living Lab Experiments and Ways to Anticipate Them: Lessons from Four 'Smarter' Labs." *Proceedings of the Open Living Lab Days 2018*, 11-25. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1434741.

Claude, S., S. Ginestet, M. Bonhomme, N. Moulène, and G. Escadeillas. 2017. "The Living Lab Methodology for Complex Environments: Insights from the Thermal Refurbishment of a Historical District in the City of Cahors, France." *Energy Research & Social Science* 32: 121-130. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.01.018.

Díaz-Reviriego, I., E. Turnhout, and S. Beck. 2019. "Participation and Inclusiveness in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services." *Nature Sustainability* 2 (6): 457-464. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6.

Dvarioniene, J., I. Gurauskiene, G. Gecevicius, D. Trummer, C. Selada, I. Marques, and C. Cosmi. 2015. "Stakeholders Involvement for Energy Conscious Communities: The Energy Labs Experience in 10 European Communities." *Renewable Energy*. 75: 512-518. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.017.

Ehnert, F., N. Frantzeskaki, J. Barnes, S. Borgström, L. Gorissen, F. Kern, L. Strenchock, and M. Egermann. 2018. "The Acceleration of Urban Sustainability Transitions: A Comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm." *Sustainability* 10 (3): 612. doi:10.3390/su10030612.

Engels, F., A. Wentland, and S. Pfotenhauer. 2019. "Testing Future Societies? Developing a Framework for Test Beds and Living Labs as Instruments of Innovation Governance." *Research Policy* 48 (9): 103826. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826.

Equal By 30. 2021. "Advancing Diversity and Inclusivity in the Energy Sector." https://www equalby30 org/sites/ equalby30 files/2022-12/equalby30 reporting framework extended report-en pdf.

European Commission. 2024. *Gender Balance in the R&I Field to Improve the Role of Women in the Energy Transition – Final Report and Annexes*. Brussels: European Commission.

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2022. "Energy Prosumers in Europe: Citizen Participation in the Energy Transition." Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/030218.

European Parliament. 2023. "TV Still Main Source for News but Social Media is Gaining Ground." Brussels: European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20231115IPR11303/tv-still-main-sourc e-for-news-but-social-media-is-gaining-ground.

Evans, J., R. Jones, A. Karvonen, L. Millard, and J. Wendler. 2015. "Living Labs and Co-Production: University Campuses as Platforms for Sustainability Science." *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability* 16: 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.005.

Evans, J., and A. Karvonen. 2014. "Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint! – Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures." *International Journal of Urban and Regional Research* 38 (2): 413-430. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12077.
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

Fritz, L., and C. Binder. 2020. "Whose Knowledge, Whose Values? An Empirical Analysis of Power in Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research." *European Journal of Futures Research* 8 (1): 3. doi:10.1186/s40309-020-0161-4.

Geels, F. 2002. "Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study." *Research Policy* 31 (8-9): 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.

Geels, F. 2010. "Ontologies, Socio-Technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the Multi-Level Perspective." *Research Policy* 39 (4): 495-510. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022.

GenderCC. 2024. " Literature Review on Gender and Energy. " Berlin: DIALOGUES. https://www.dialoguesproject. eu/public_result/literature-review-on-gender-and-energy/.

Hanke, F., R. Guyet, and M. Feenstra. 2021. "Do Renewable Energy Communities Deliver Energy Justice? Exploring Insights from 71 European Cases." *Energy Research & Social Science* 80: 102244. doi:10.1016/j. erss.2021.102244.

Hossain, M., S. Leminen, and M. Westerlund. 2019. "A Systematic Review of Living Lab Literature." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 213: 976-988. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257.

IEA. 2025. "Energy and Gender." Paris. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-and-gender

Kahane, D., K. Loptson, J. Herriman, and M. Hardy. 2013. "Stakeholder and Citizen Roles in Public Deliberation." *Journal of Deliberative Democracy* 9 (2): 1-35. doi:10.16997/jdd.164.

Kalinauskaitė, I., R. Brankaert, Y. Lu, T. Bekker, A. Brombacher, and S. Vos. 2021. "Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations." *Sustainability* 13 (2): 614. doi:10.3390/su13020614.

Karytsas, S., and H. Theodoropoulou. 2014. "Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors That Influence Publics' Awareness on the Different Forms of Renewable Energy Sources." *Renewable Energy*. 71: 480-485. doi:10.1016/j. renene.2014.05.059.

Kern, K., and W. Haupt. 2021. "Von Reallaboren zu urbanen Experimenten: Deutsche und internationale Debatten zu Skalierung und urbanen Nachhaltigkeitsstransformationen (From Real-World Laboratories to Urban Experiments: German and International Debates on Scaling and Urban Sustainability Transformations)." *Raumforschung und Raumordnung* 79 (4): 322-335. doi:10.14512/rur.48.

Kreß-Ludwig, M., O. Marg, R. Schneider, and A. Lux. 2024. "Lessons from Transdisciplinary Urban Research to Promote Sustainability Transformation in Real-World Labs: Categories, Pathways, and Key Principles for Generating Societal Impact." *GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 33 (1): 10–17. doi:10.14512/ gaia.33.S1.3.

Laborgne, P., E. Ekille, J. Wendel, A. Pierce, M. Heyder, J. Suchomska, I. Nichersu, et al. 2021. "Urban Living Labs: How to Enable Inclusive Transdisciplinary Research?" *Urban Transformations* 3 (1): 11. doi:10.1186/s42854-021-00026-0.

Lam, D., B. Martín-López, A. Wiek, E. Bennett, N. Frantzeskaki, A. Horcea-Milcu, and D. Lang. 2020. "Scaling the Impact of Sustainability Initiatives: A Typology of Amplification Processes." *Urban Transformations* 2 (1): 3. doi:10.1186/s42854-020-00007-9.

Lambin, E., H. Kim, J. Leape, and K. Lee. 2020. "Scaling up Solutions for a Sustainability Transition." *One Earth* 3 (1): 89-96. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.06.010.

Manzini, E., and F. Rizzo. 2011. "Small Projects/Large Changes: Participatory Design as an Open Participated Process." *CoDesign* 7 (3-4): 199-215. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.630472.

Mbatha, S., and J. Musango. 2022. "A Systematic Review on the Application of the Living Lab Concept and Role of Stakeholders in the Energy Sector." *Sustainability* 14 (21): 14009. doi:10.3390/su142114009.

Mechlenborg, M., and K. Gram-Hanssen. 2022. "Masculine Roles and Practices in Homes with Photovoltaic Systems." *Buildings and Cities* 3 (1): 638-652. doi:10.5334/bc.211.

Mitchell, N., C. Herdtle, and K. Jacob. 2024. "Examining the Dynamics of Social Cohesion: A Call for a Different Perspective on Scaling Impacts of Real-World Laboratories." *GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 33 (1): 51-56. doi:10.14512/gaia.33.S1.8.

Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell, and D. Vocisano. 2015. "Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep: Strategies of Non-Profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation." *Journal of Corporate Citizenship* 2015 (58): 67-84. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2015.ju.00009.

Naber, R., R. Raven, M. Kouw, and T. Dassen. 2017. "Scaling up Sustainable Energy Innovations." *Energy Policy* 110: 342-354. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.056.

Omann, I., M. Kammerlander, J. Jäger, A. Bisaro, and J. Tàbara. 2020. "Assessing Opportunities for Scaling Out, Up and Deep of Win-Win Solutions for a Sustainable World." *Climatic Change* 160 (4): 753-767. doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02503-9.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2024a. "Diversity." Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ diversity_n?tab=factsheet#1329802340.

Oxford English Dictionary. 2024b. "Inclusivity." Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/ inclusivity_n?tab=factsheet#797434.

Pfotenhauer, S., B. Laurent, K. Papageorgiou, and A. Stilgoe. 2022. "The Politics of Scaling." *Social Studies of Science* 52 (1): 3-34. doi:10.1177/03063127211048945.
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Quick, K., and M. Feldman. 2011. "Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion." *Journal of Planning Education and Research* 31 (3): 272–290. doi:10.1177/0739456X11410979.

Radtke, J., and D. Ohlhorst. 2021. "Community Energy in Germany – Bowling Alone in Elite Clubs?" *Utilities Policy* 72: 101269. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2021.101269.

Rajahonka, M., H. Merikoski, and J. Handelberg. 2022. "Living Lab Testing and Innovation Scale-up Playbook. IN-4-AHA Project – Innovation Networks for Scaling Active and Healthy Ageing." https://innovation4ageing.tehnopol.ee/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/D4.1- living lab-testing-and-innovation-scale-up-playbook-FINAL.pdf

Sahakian, M., M. Zhan, J. Epp, L. Liste, B. Nilsen, K. Schibel, F. Reusswig, et al. 2025. "From Dispersed Practice to Radical Socio-Technical Imaginaries: The Role of Action Labs for Supporting Collective Energy Citizenship." *Consumption and Society* 4 (1): 11–32. doi:10.1332/27528499Y2024D000000041.

Schäfer, M., M. Bergmann, and L. Theiler. 2021. "Systematizing Societal Effects of Transdisciplinary Research." *Research Evaluation* 30 (4): 484–499. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvab019.

Schäpke, N., F. Stelzer, G. Caniglia, M. Bergmann, M. Wanner, M. Singer-Brodowski, D. Loorbach, P. Olsson, C. Baedeker, and D. Lang. 2018. "Jointly Experimenting for Transformation? Shaping Real-World Laboratories by Comparing Them." *GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 27 (1): 85–96. doi:10.14512/gaia.27.S1.16.

Schäpke, N., F. Wagner, R. Beecroft, R. Rhodius, P. Laborgne, M. Wanner, and O. Parodi. 2024. "Impacts of Real-World Labs in Sustainability Transformations: Forms of Impacts, Creation Strategies, Challenges, and Methodological Advances." *GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 33 (1): 4–9. doi:10.14512/gaia.33.S1.2.

Schecke, N., A. Abdulnabi Ali, A. Bönisch, and S. Schweiger. 2021. "Die Verstetigung von urbanen Reallaboren im Spannungsfeld theoretischer Konzeption und praktischer Umsetzung – eine empirische Untersuchung (The Stabilisation of Urban Living Labs in the Area of Conflict between Theoretical Conception and Practical Implementation – An Empirical Study)." *Raumforschung und Raumordnung* 79 (4): 411–423. doi:10.14512/rur.52.

Schio, N., M. Dijk, M. Diethart, T. Höflehner, P. Wlasak, R. Castri, F. Cellina, et al. 2019. *How to Anticipate Constraints on Upscaling Inclusive Living Lab Experiments, SmarterLabs Project 2016-2019*. Vienna: JPI Urban Europe.

Schneidewind, U., K. Augenstein, F. Stelzer, and M. Wanner. 2018. "Structure Matters: Real-World Laboratories as a New Type of Large-Scale Research Infrastructure: A Framework Inspired by Giddens’ Structuration Theory." *GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society* 27 (1): 12–17. doi:10.14512/gaia.27.S1.5.

Schot, J. 1998. "The Usefulness of Evolutionary Models for Explaining Innovation: The Case of The Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century." *History and Technology* 14 (3): 173–200. doi:10.1080/07341519808581928.

Schröer, H. 2018. "Vielfalt als kommunale Gestaltungsaufgabe (Diversity as a Task for Local Authorities)." In *Handbuch Lokale Integrationspolitik* (Handbook of Local Integration Policy), edited by F. Gesemann and R. Roth, 227–260. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

Schwanitz, V., A. Wierling, H. Arghandeh Paudler, C. Von Beck, S. Dufner, I. Koren, T. Kraudzun, T. Marcroft, L. Mueller, and J. Zeiss. 2023. "Statistical Evidence for the Contribution of Citizen-Led Initiatives and Projects to the Energy Transition in Europe." *Scientific Reports* 13 (1): 1342. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28504-4.

Sengers, F., B. Turnheim, and F. Berkhout. 2021. "Beyond Experiments: Embedding Outcomes in Climate Governance." *Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space* 39 (6): 1148–1171. doi:10.1177/2399654420953861.

Shejale, S., M. Zhan, M. Sahakian, R. Aleksieva, M. Biresselioglu, V. Bogdanova, B. Cardone, et al. 2025. "Participation as a Pathway to Procedural Justice: A Review of Energy Initiatives across Eight European Countries." *Energy Research & Social Science* 122: 103982. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.103982.

Smith, A., J. Voß, and J. Grin. 2010. "Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges." *Research Policy* 39 (4): 435–448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023.

Sonnberger, M., and D. Lindner. 2021. "Participation in Real-World Laboratories in a New Light?! Closing the Gap between Co-Creative and Deliberative Participation." *Raumforschung und Raumordnung* 79 (4): 424–437. doi:10.14512/rur.27.

Sovacool, B. 2021. "Who Are the Victims of Low-Carbon Transitions? Towards a Political Ecology of Climate Change Mitigation." *Energy Research & Social Science* 73: 101916. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.101916.

Sovacool, B., and M. Brisbois. 2019. "Elite Power in Low-Carbon Transitions: A Critical and Interdisciplinary Review." *Energy Research & Social Science* 57: 101242. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101242.

Sovacool, B., P. Newell, S. Carley, and J. Fanzo. 2022. "Equity, Technological Innovation and Sustainable Behaviour in a Low-Carbon Future." *Nature Human Behaviour* 6 (3): 326–337. doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01257-8.

Van den Bosch, S., and J. Rotmans. 2008. "Deepening, Broadening and Scaling Up: A Framework for Steering Transition Experiments." *Delft: Knowledge Centre for Sustainable System Innovations and Transitions TNO Strategy and Policy*. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/15812/KCT_transitieboekje_02.pdf

van der Wal, J. 2021. "Innovation Upscaling and Citizen Participation: Two Conflicting Elements of the Living Lab Concept?" *Groningen: University of Groningen*. https://frw.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/id/eprint/3620.
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

Von Wirth, T., L. Fuenfschilling, N. Frantzeskaki, and L. Coenen. 2019. "Impacts of Urban Living Labs on Sustainability Transitions: Mechanisms and Strategies for Systemic Change through Experimentation." *European Planning Studies* 27 (2): 229-257. doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1504895.

Voytenko, Y., K. McCormick, J. Evans, and G. Schliwa. 2016. "Urban Living Labs for Sustainability and Low Carbon Cities in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda." *Journal of Cleaner Production* 123: 45-54. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.053.

Werbner, P. 2013. "Everyday Multiculturalism: Theorising the Difference between ‘Intersectionality’ and ‘Multiple Identities.’" *Ethnicities* 13 (4): 401-419. doi:10.1177/1468796813483728.

Wrangsten, C., S. Ferlander, and S. Borgström. 2022. "Feminist Urban Living Labs and Social Sustainability: Lessons from Sweden." *Urban Transformations* 4 (1): 5. doi:10.1186/s42854-022-00034-8.

Yndigegn, S., L. Malmborg, M. Foverskov, and E. Brandt. 2021. "Beyond a Living Lab: Scaling Social Innovation." *Nordic Design Research*. https://archive.nordes.org/index.php/n13/article/view/601

## Appendix A

<table><caption>Table A.1. Sociodemographic data of participants of CAL events (recruitment survey).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Berlin</th><th>Geneva</th><th>Izmir</th><th>Norway</th><th>Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total number of participants</td><td>32</td><td>39</td><td>27</td><td>10</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>22</td><td>22</td><td>20</td><td>7</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Men</td><td>7</td><td>15</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Non-binary</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Did not disclose</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A-levels</td><td>7</td><td>4</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor</td><td>14</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>3</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Elementary or secondary school</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Master's degree</td><td>6</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Post-Lauream education (e.g., PhD)</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Professional training (practical skills)</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>9</td><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Low-middle</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>4</td><td>15</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Middle-upper</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Upper</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Did not disclose or not available</td><td>12</td><td>14</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>Employment status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Housework and/or care responsibilities/not paid</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Not in paid work for some other reason</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Retired from paid work</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>13</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Working full-time (30 h a week or more)</td><td>6</td><td>18</td><td>20</td><td>6</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Working part-time (30 h a week or less)</td><td>6</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table>