Background of the mapping
In terms of content, the real-world laboratory mapping is based on the topics of the project topics. Key areas include adding storeys, reuse and builiding exttensions or other forms of redensification. The mapping supports the platform's goal of actively strengthening the transfer of results and solutions.
The selction of real-world laboratories and innovative best practices is based on two critieria:
- A definition of the real-world laboratory term for a common understanding and to distinguish best practices in the context of building and housing
- A good link to the content of the Building & Living platform
Target groups and added value
The aim of the real-world laboratory mapping is to provide an information basis to the following target groups:
- administrative stakeholders at all political levels,
- practitioners from the business communitiy,
- representatives of civil society,
- academics,
who are involved in real-world laboratories.
User benefit from the mapping in the following ways:
- A quick overview: The mapping provides a quick and easy overview of existing and completed real-world laboratories and best practices in the context of creating affordable housing in existing buildings.
- Gain insight into the work of real-world laboratories: Those who run real-world laboratories provide information about the framework conditions and cooperation with partners in a real-world laboratory. This can be particulary helpful when initiating a real-world laboratory.
- Detailed information: Each real-world laboratory or best practice is presented with its own profile page. The information provides details on research questions, research design, type of cooperation, process design, type of funding, empirical values and elements of success, among other things.
Definition of the term "real-world laboratory" in the context of the Building & Living platform
A real-world laboratory is a transdisciplinary research setting for collaboration on issues at the interface between science and society.
Through experimentation, these laboratories create spaces for developing social, technological and regulatory innovations under real-world conditions, to understand potential impacts and to foster mututal learning about suitable implementation pathways. Real-world laboratory processes are always guided by a commitment to the common good and/or an integrative approach to sustainability.
An ideal real-world laboratoy requires the involvement of science and the joint development of knowledge by scientific and non-scientific partners. The degree of stakeholder involvement can vary over the course of the project.
While real-world laboratories as research infrstructure should tend to be designed for the long term, the (real) experiments conducted within them are usually time-limited. This temporal framing creates opportunities to reflect on, scale-up, and transfer from individual experiments in order to foster social learning processes and enable sustainable development.
In the scientific discourse on existing realworld laboratories, two distinct characteristics emerge:
Real-world laboratories of this type are primarily understood as transdisciplinary research and learning settings. This type provides a long-term experimental environment in which solution-oriented courses of action can be jointly developed, tested and evaluated. In line with the principles of transdisciplinary research and learning, co-design, co-creation of knowledge and re-integration/co-evaluation play a central role.
Real-world laboratories focused on testing technical or regulatory solution options represent type 2. By integrating the real-world application context, these laboratories aim to test concrete solutions to social challenges. Under conditions as realistic as possible, conclusions can be drawn about the usability and/or acceptability of innovations such as new technologies or materials.
In practice, there are projects that combine aspects of both type 1 and type 2 and can therefore be considered as mixed types. In the context of the mapping process, theses real-world laboratories are referred to as `types 1 and 2´.
The best practices presented on this website compile practices, technologies, and innovations from various project contexts - not all of which are necessarily embedded in a real-world laboratory setting. This collection includes a broad range of (transformative) solution options that are highlighted as best practices in the field of sustainability transformation.
Link to the platform's content
The selection of real-world laboratories and innovative practical examples is based on the discussions and results of the project's working groups, in line with the target criteria of affordability, sustainability and quality of housing/life. The focus is on adding storeys, reuse and extending buildings, or other forms of redensification. In addition, the mapping presents projects that correspond with the platform's work in a broader context. These include real-world laboratories and innovative practical examples that indirectly contribute to the platform's goals. For example, the energy-efficient renovation of an entire neighbourhood - such as in the sense of a cross-neighbourhood, intelligent energy-supply - can lead to a long-term reduction in electricity and heating costs and thus sustainably lower overall housing costs.
Contact
Seda Akinci
Advisor for real-world labs mapping, coordinatorin of stakeholder advisory board
Sources:
Anduschus, M., Arnold, S., Backhaus, J., Klingenfuß, J., Lux, A., Niemann, A., ... & Wanner, M. (2020). Innovationsmethode Reallabor: Eine Typologie. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB). https://doi.org/10.24406/publica-1113
Bernert, P., Wanner, M., Riechers, M., Lang, D. J., & Abson, D. J. (2023). Cross‑case knowledge transfer in transformative research: Enabling learning in and across sustainability‑oriented labs through case reporting. Sustainability Science, 18(2), 707–723. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-023-00056-w
Böschen, S., John, S., & Backhaus, J. (2024). Reallabor. In M. Sonnberger, A. Bleicher, & M. Groß (Hrsg.), Handbuch Umweltsoziologie (S. 223–238). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37218-7_12
Caniglia, G., Schäpke, N., Lang, D. J., Abson, D. J., Luederitz, C., Wiek, A., ... & von Wehrden, H. (2020). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 3(12), 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z
McCrory, G., Adjei, E., Kristof, K., & Wittmayer, J. (2020). Sustainability-oriented labs in real-world contexts: An exploratory review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123202. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123202
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(S1), 25–43. doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Caniglia, G., Bergmann, M., & Lang, D. J. (2018). Reallabore im Kontext transformativer Forschung: Ansatzpunkte zur Konzeption und Einbettung in den internationalen Forschungsstand. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27(1), 7–16. doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.1.3
Stauffacher, M., Walter, A. I., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: A transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss Prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21(6), 409–422. doi.org/10.1007/s11213-008-9107-7
Schneidewind, U. (2014). Urbane Reallabore – Ein Blick in die aktuelle Forschungswerkstatt. PND – Planung neu denken, 3, 1–7. http://www.planung-neu-denken.de