Intersecting governance logics in living labs: beyond governance tensions?

Abstract

Abstract Living labs are increasingly used to support collaborative experimentation and innovation in urban contexts. However, their integration into established public governance may create tensions between collaborative and traditional governance. This study examines how actors governing living labs navigate these potential tensions. Drawing on qualitative data from twelve living labs across European cities, we analyze governance along three dimensions: participation, coordination, and outcomes. The findings reveal distinct governance conditions across these dimensions: governance logics related to participation are primarily constrained in practice, those related to coordination tend to coexist or complement one another, while those related to outcomes more clearly create competing demands. Actors respond to these different conditions by adjusting practices, combining arrangements, and balancing competing demands. Based on these findings, we propose an adaptive governance framework that accounts for how actors navigate the intersection of collaborative and traditional governance logics in living labs. The study contributes to the literature on living labs by showing that intersecting governance logics do not necessarily result in tensions. Governing living labs therefore requires different adaptive responses depending on how governance logics intersect in practice.