208
H. Kanning et al.
laboratory format. The two desiderata above provide the starting point for the present
article. The aim of this article is to classify and reflect on the possibilities generated
by real-world laboratories that have been initiated by practitioner stakeholders. A
prime example of such real-world laboratories are those developed by Energieavantgarde Anhalt. This registered association wishes to contribute to sustainable land
management in the context of the energy transition in rural areas, featuring small
and medium-sized towns. A comparative analysis of these real-world laboratories is
conducted using core characteristics from the scientific debate on real-world laboratories. As a result, the insight gained from this analysis can be used for future
development and research.
Keywords Regional energy transition · Real-world laboratories as a whole, within
a project · Practitioner stakeholder’s initiative · Participation · Co-design,
Co-production
11.1 Introduction
Real-world laboratories are gaining importance in the field of sustainable land
management and spatial development (see, for example, Augenstein et al. 2016;
Hahne and Kegler 2016). In Germany, the discussion on these innovative formats
was primarily triggered by the flagship report by the German Advisory Council
on Global Change (WBGU) “World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability” (WBGU 2011). In its report, WBGU recommends a new kind of interaction between politics, society, science and the economy (ibid.: 26). In this context,
transdisciplinary and transformative sustainability research is encouraged (Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski 2013: 2015) and, in particular, the format of real-world
laboratories promoted (Schneidewind 2014).
The popularity of real-world laboratories has increased dramatically recently in
Germany, due not least to the initiation of several support programmes at the federal
and state level.
1 As such, both the variety of publications and publication density are
developing dynamically and at a disproportionately high rate, as pointed out clearly
in the analysis by Schäpke et al. (2018a). At the same time, a debate has emerged
that is controversial to some extent. While some see little new in the real-world
laboratory format, others pin their hopes on the (potentially) innovative power of
real-world laboratories (Beecroft and Parodi 2016: 4). In other words, the debate on
real-world laboratories and the potential they have for social transformations and
1 The state government of Baden-Württemberg in particular was quick to embrace the WBGU
recommendations, establishing a “Science for Sustainability” group of experts (MWK 2013)
and initiating two support programmes for real-world laboratories (BaWü Labs); for an
overview, see: https://mwk.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/forschung/forschungspolitik/wissenschaftfuer-nachhaltigkeit/reallabore/ (last accessed on 16 July 2019). The Federal Ministry of Education
and Research (BMBF) also promotes real-world laboratories, for example in the context of the “City
of the Future” funding initiative (Schmidt 2017), addressing not only universities in the process,
but also communities or municipalities as practitioner stakeholders.
H. Kanning et al.
laboratory format. The two desiderata above provide the starting point for the present
article. The aim of this article is to classify and reflect on the possibilities generated
by real-world laboratories that have been initiated by practitioner stakeholders. A
prime example of such real-world laboratories are those developed by Energieavantgarde Anhalt. This registered association wishes to contribute to sustainable land
management in the context of the energy transition in rural areas, featuring small
and medium-sized towns. A comparative analysis of these real-world laboratories is
conducted using core characteristics from the scientific debate on real-world laboratories. As a result, the insight gained from this analysis can be used for future
development and research.
Keywords Regional energy transition · Real-world laboratories as a whole, within
a project · Practitioner stakeholder’s initiative · Participation · Co-design,
Co-production
11.1 Introduction
Real-world laboratories are gaining importance in the field of sustainable land
management and spatial development (see, for example, Augenstein et al. 2016;
Hahne and Kegler 2016). In Germany, the discussion on these innovative formats
was primarily triggered by the flagship report by the German Advisory Council
on Global Change (WBGU) “World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability” (WBGU 2011). In its report, WBGU recommends a new kind of interaction between politics, society, science and the economy (ibid.: 26). In this context,
transdisciplinary and transformative sustainability research is encouraged (Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski 2013: 2015) and, in particular, the format of real-world
laboratories promoted (Schneidewind 2014).
The popularity of real-world laboratories has increased dramatically recently in
Germany, due not least to the initiation of several support programmes at the federal
and state level.
1 As such, both the variety of publications and publication density are
developing dynamically and at a disproportionately high rate, as pointed out clearly
in the analysis by Schäpke et al. (2018a). At the same time, a debate has emerged
that is controversial to some extent. While some see little new in the real-world
laboratory format, others pin their hopes on the (potentially) innovative power of
real-world laboratories (Beecroft and Parodi 2016: 4). In other words, the debate on
real-world laboratories and the potential they have for social transformations and
1 The state government of Baden-Württemberg in particular was quick to embrace the WBGU
recommendations, establishing a “Science for Sustainability” group of experts (MWK 2013)
and initiating two support programmes for real-world laboratories (BaWü Labs); for an
overview, see: https://mwk.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/forschung/forschungspolitik/wissenschaftfuer-nachhaltigkeit/reallabore/ (last accessed on 16 July 2019). The Federal Ministry of Education
and Research (BMBF) also promotes real-world laboratories, for example in the context of the “City
of the Future” funding initiative (Schmidt 2017), addressing not only universities in the process,
but also communities or municipalities as practitioner stakeholders.