11 Real-World Laboratories Initiated by Practitioner …
221
sustainable urban and regional developments. What is more, knowledge on participation in planning processes also virtually serves as a role model for real-world
laboratories (Eckart et al. 2018: 131ff; Kanning 2018). As such, real-world laboratory formats are compatible with sustainable land management, and also offer added
value. Especially real-world laboratory formats that are initiated and coordinated
by practitioner stakeholders offer specific implementation potential and, at the same
time, are faced with particular challenges.
In our opinion, the direct and explicit integration of objectives for practice and
research associated with the real-world laboratory format (Defila and Di Giulio
2018c: 40) represents particular added value over common participatory land
management processes. In real-world laboratories, all of the stakeholders involved,
whether practitioners or scientists, are considered to be “researchers” [own translation] (Eckart et al. 2018: 105f) who jointly define the solution to the problem and
produce new knowledge (co-design, co-production), integrating different specialist
disciplines as well as science and practice. In contrast to the planning and development approaches established in land management, an extended self-conception can
be identified that could help bridge the oft-criticised gap between theory and practice (e.g. Lamker et al. 2017). In real-world laboratories, the transformation approach
is oriented to radical innovations and change processes towards sustainability in a
much more proactive manner than is often the case to date in sustainable urban and
regional development processes (see Heyen et al. 2018: 26). Where the principle of
sustainable development is reflected critically and understood integratively in correspondence with the state of scientific knowledge in real-world laboratories, this goes
beyond the current prevailing understanding of sustainability in land management.
The latter focuses primarily on the safeguarding or creation of ecological qualities,
and pays little attention to the original core of the idea of sustainability, i.e. the transformation of social, economic action in a social-ecological direction (see Kanning
2005; Hofmeister 2014). In this connection, it would also be necessary to include in
the discussion the generally inherent, unquestioned concept of material growth (see
Fröhlich and Gerhard 2017: 28ff). As such, the real-world laboratory format—in line
with the design currently featuring strongly in the scientific discourse—could help
establish experimental spaces for radical innovations in which the various areas of
expertise in transformation and planning (science) are brought together for sustainable land management and, ideally, linked to educational objectives (see Beecroft
et al. 2018: 78).
Real-world laboratories that are initiated and coordinated by practitioner stakeholders also offer special deployment potential due their practical approach, and
at the same time face special challenges. On that point, a number of insights and
hypotheses can be summarised from EAA’s experiences and discussions for further
scientific discourse and practical development:
Practitioner stakeholders must satisfy various conditions and have certain skills
to be able to initiate real-world laboratories. Among other things, they must be
capable of organising a research alliance; making their results publicly accessible; and
participating in scientific discourse. They must also either have their own financial
resources for conducting research or at least have a strong position in the relevant
221
sustainable urban and regional developments. What is more, knowledge on participation in planning processes also virtually serves as a role model for real-world
laboratories (Eckart et al. 2018: 131ff; Kanning 2018). As such, real-world laboratory formats are compatible with sustainable land management, and also offer added
value. Especially real-world laboratory formats that are initiated and coordinated
by practitioner stakeholders offer specific implementation potential and, at the same
time, are faced with particular challenges.
In our opinion, the direct and explicit integration of objectives for practice and
research associated with the real-world laboratory format (Defila and Di Giulio
2018c: 40) represents particular added value over common participatory land
management processes. In real-world laboratories, all of the stakeholders involved,
whether practitioners or scientists, are considered to be “researchers” [own translation] (Eckart et al. 2018: 105f) who jointly define the solution to the problem and
produce new knowledge (co-design, co-production), integrating different specialist
disciplines as well as science and practice. In contrast to the planning and development approaches established in land management, an extended self-conception can
be identified that could help bridge the oft-criticised gap between theory and practice (e.g. Lamker et al. 2017). In real-world laboratories, the transformation approach
is oriented to radical innovations and change processes towards sustainability in a
much more proactive manner than is often the case to date in sustainable urban and
regional development processes (see Heyen et al. 2018: 26). Where the principle of
sustainable development is reflected critically and understood integratively in correspondence with the state of scientific knowledge in real-world laboratories, this goes
beyond the current prevailing understanding of sustainability in land management.
The latter focuses primarily on the safeguarding or creation of ecological qualities,
and pays little attention to the original core of the idea of sustainability, i.e. the transformation of social, economic action in a social-ecological direction (see Kanning
2005; Hofmeister 2014). In this connection, it would also be necessary to include in
the discussion the generally inherent, unquestioned concept of material growth (see
Fröhlich and Gerhard 2017: 28ff). As such, the real-world laboratory format—in line
with the design currently featuring strongly in the scientific discourse—could help
establish experimental spaces for radical innovations in which the various areas of
expertise in transformation and planning (science) are brought together for sustainable land management and, ideally, linked to educational objectives (see Beecroft
et al. 2018: 78).
Real-world laboratories that are initiated and coordinated by practitioner stakeholders also offer special deployment potential due their practical approach, and
at the same time face special challenges. On that point, a number of insights and
hypotheses can be summarised from EAA’s experiences and discussions for further
scientific discourse and practical development:
Practitioner stakeholders must satisfy various conditions and have certain skills
to be able to initiate real-world laboratories. Among other things, they must be
capable of organising a research alliance; making their results publicly accessible; and
participating in scientific discourse. They must also either have their own financial
resources for conducting research or at least have a strong position in the relevant