IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v23y2024i2p37-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harnessing the Potential of Living Labs in European Research Projects on Agriculture. The Case of Promoting Prudent Use of Antimicrobials in Livestock

Author

Listed:
  • Bernadette Oehen
  • Annick Spaans
  • Florence Bonnet‐Beaugrand
  • Nicolas Fortané
  • Hanne Kongsted
  • Mette Vaarst

Abstract

The urgency to reduce the use of antimicrobials in the livestock sector has become part of the European Farm‐to‐Fork agenda. To develop innovations and pave the way for prudent antimicrobial use (AMU), the H2020 four‐year‐long ROADMAP project implemented the approach of Living Labs (LL). It stands for a process that involves a heterogeneous group of stakeholders in co‐creation, testing and evaluating innovations in real‐world contexts. The use of LLs has gained momentum to accelerate transformation of European agriculture by developing innovations through end‐user (farmer) involvement. However, the LL‐approach is new in the livestock sector. During the project, 11 LLs were established in seven European countries, each with its own settings but linked to the project's overarching goals. Some LLs developed a common understanding of AMU within the sector or between farmers and veterinarians, while others focussed on policy development or better management practices. During the ROADMAP project, we learned about the potential and limitations of the LL approach in the livestock sector. Using the approach of social innovations, we developed recommendations on how to realise the potential of LLs in a research context to meet the goals of the EU Farm‐to‐Fork strategy of prudent AMU. La réduction urgente de l'utilisation d'antimicrobiens dans le secteur de l’élevage fait désormais partie de l'agenda européen de la ferme à l'assiette. Pour développer des innovations et ouvrir la voie à une utilisation des antimicrobiens (AMU) prudente, le projet ROADMAP H2020, d'une durée de 4 ans, a mis en œuvre l'approche des Laboratoires vivants (LV). Il s'agit d'un processus qui implique un groupe hétérogène de parties prenantes dans la cocréation, le test et l’évaluation des innovations dans des contextes réels. L'utilisation des LV a pris de l'ampleur pour accélérer la transformation de l'agriculture européenne en développant des innovations grâce à la participation de l'utilisateur final (agriculteur). Cependant, l'approche LV est nouvelle dans le secteur de l'élevage. Au cours du projet, 11 LV ont été créés dans sept pays européens, chacun avec son propre contexte mais lié aux objectifs primordiaux du projet. Certains LV ont développé une compréhension commune de l'AMU au sein du secteur ou entre les agriculteurs et les vétérinaires, tandis que d'autres se sont concentrés sur l'élaboration de politiques ou de meilleures pratiques de gestion. Au cours du projet ROADMAP, nous avons découvert le potentiel et les limites de l'approche LV dans le secteur de l'élevage. En utilisant l'approche des innovations sociales, nous avons élaboré des recommandations sur la manière de réaliser le potentiel des LV dans un contexte de recherche pour atteindre les objectifs de la stratégie européenne de la ferme à l'assiette en termes d'UMA prudente. Die dringende Notwendigkeit, den Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel in der Tierhaltung zu reduzieren, ist Teil der europäischen „Vom Hof auf den Tisch“‐Agenda geworden. Um Innovationen zu entwickeln und den Weg für eine umsichtige Verwendung antimikrobieller Mittel zu bereiten, hat das vierjährige H2020‐Projekt ROADMAP den Forschungsansatz der Reallabore angewandt. Dies steht für einen Prozess, bei dem eine heterogene Gruppe Interessierter an der gemeinsamen Erarbeitung, Erprobung und Bewertung von Innovationen in einem realen Umfeld beteiligt ist. Die Anwendung von Reallaboren hat an Bedeutung gewonnen, um die Transformation der europäischen Landwirtschaft durch die Entwicklung von Innovationen unter Einbeziehung der Endanwender (Landwirtschaft Betreibende) zu beschleunigen. Der Reallabor‐Forschungsansatz ist jedoch neu im Tierhaltungssektor. Während des Projekts wurden elf Reallabore in sieben europäischen Ländern eingerichtet, jedes mit eigenen Rahmenbedingungen, dennoch verbunden durch das übergeordnete Ziel des Projekts. Einige Reallabore entwickelten ein gemeinsames Verständnis vom umsichtigen Einsatz antimikrobieller Mittel innerhalb des Sektors oder zwischen Landwirtschaft Betreibenden und Tierärzteschaft, während andere Reallabore sich auf die Entwicklung von Politiken oder besseren Managementpraktiken konzentrierten. Während des ROADMAP‐Projekts lernten wir das Potenzial und die Limitationen des Reallabor‐Ansatzes im Tierhaltungssektor kennen. Unter Anwendung des Ansatzes sozialer Innovationen haben wir Empfehlungen entwickelt, wie das Potenzial der Reallabore im Forschungskontext realisiert werden kann, um die Ziele der EU „Vom Hof auf den Tisch“‐Strategie einer umsichtigeren Nutzung antimikrobieller Mittel zu erreichen.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernadette Oehen & Annick Spaans & Florence Bonnet‐Beaugrand & Nicolas Fortané & Hanne Kongsted & Mette Vaarst, 2024. "Harnessing the Potential of Living Labs in European Research Projects on Agriculture. The Case of Promoting Prudent Use of Antimicrobials in Livestock," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 37-43, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:37-43
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12450
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12450?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ziping Wu, 2024. "Approach Choices for Antimicrobial Use Reduction in European Food Animal Production," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(1), pages 36-42, April.
    2. Chris McPhee & Margaret Bancerz & Muriel Mambrini-Doudet & François Chrétien & Christian Huyghe & Javier Gracia-Garza, 2021. "The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    3. Mónica E. Edwards-Schachter & Cristian E. Matti & Enrique Alcántara, 2012. "Fostering Quality of Life through Social Innovation: A Living Lab Methodology Study Case," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(6), pages 672-692, November.
    4. Jorieke Potters & Kevin Collins & Herman Schoorlemmer & Egil Petter Stræte & Emils Kilis & Andy Lane & Heloise Leloup, 2022. "Living Labs as an Approach to Strengthen Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 23-29, April.
    5. Dimitri Schuurman & Seppo Leminen, 2021. "Living Labs Past Achievements, Current Developments, and Future Trajectories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-6, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sophie Molia & Erwin Wauters & Stefaan Ribbens & Catherine Belloc & Massimo Canali & Hanne Kongsted & Merete Studnitz, 2024. "How Contexts and Desired Impacts Shape Interventions towards Improved Antimicrobial Use in Animal Production," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 23(2), pages 44-51, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Irene Bouwma & Seerp Wigboldus & Jorieke Potters & Trond Selnes & Sabine van Rooij & Judith Westerink, 2022. "Sustainability Transitions and the Contribution of Living Labs: A Framework to Assess Collective Capabilities and Contextual Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Toffolini, Quentin & Hannachi, Mourad & Capitaine, Mathieu & Cerf, Marianne, 2023. "Ideal-types of experimentation practices in agricultural Living Labs: Various appropriations of an open innovation model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    3. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    4. Aksel Ersoy & Ellen van Bueren, 2020. "Challenges of Urban Living Labs towards the Future of Local Innovation," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 89-100.
    5. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    6. Daniel Alonso‐Martínez & Nuria González‐Álvarez & Mariano Nieto, 2019. "The influence of financial performance on corporate social innovation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 859-871, July.
    7. Svensson, Per G. & Andersson, Fredrik O. & Mahoney, Tara Q. & Ha, Jae-Pil, 2020. "Antecedents and outcomes of social innovation: A global study of sport for development and peace organizations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 657-670.
    8. Wendy Phillips & Elizabeth A. Alexander & Hazel Lee, 2019. "Going It Alone Won’t Work! The Relational Imperative for Social Innovation in Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 315-331, May.
    9. Lars Fuglsang & Anne Vorre Hansen & Ines Mergel & Maria Taivalsaari Røhnebæk, 2021. "Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: An Integrative Literature Review," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, June.
    10. Mukama, Matia & Musango, Josephine Kaviti & Smit, Suzanne & Ceschin, Fabrizio & Petrulaityte, Aine, 2022. "Development of living labs to support gendered energy technology innovation in poor urban environments," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    11. Akter, Shahriar & Babu, Mujahid Mohiuddin & Hossain, Md Afnan & Hani, Umme, 2022. "Value co-creation on a shared healthcare platform: Impact on service innovation, perceived value and patient welfare," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 95-106.
    12. Victoria Pellicer-Sifres & Sergio Belda-Miquel & Aurora López-Fogués & Alejandra Boni Aristizábal, 2016. "Exploring connections between social innovation, grassroots processes and human development: an analysis of alternative food networks in the city of Valencia (Spain)," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201604, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    13. de Mello, Natália Girão Rodrigues & Gulinck, Hubert & Van den Broeck, Pieter & Parra, Constanza, 2020. "Social-ecological sustainability of non-timber forest products: A review and theoretical considerations for future research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Richa Kumari & Ki-Seok Kwon & Byeong-Hee Lee & Kiseok Choi, 2019. "Co-Creation for Social Innovation in the Ecosystem Context: The Role of Higher Educational Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Abi Saad, Elie & Agogué, Marine, 2024. "Living Labs in science-industry collaborations: Roles, design, and application patterns," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Sean Geobey, 2022. "Reckoning with Reality: Reflections on a Place-Based Social Innovation Lab," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Indre Kalinauskaite & Rens Brankaert & Yuan Lu & Tilde Bekker & Aarnout Brombacher & Steven Vos, 2021. "Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    18. Ingrid Fasshauer, 2020. "Open Innovation Business Models : the example of living labs in France," Post-Print hal-03312263, HAL.
    19. Katharina Greve & Riccardo De Vita & Seppo Leminen & Mika Westerlund, 2021. "Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, January.
    20. Eleni Zafeiriou & Christos Karelakis & Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Konstantinos Galanopoulos & Dimitra Gkika, 2023. "Economic Development and Pesticide Use in EU Agriculture: A Nonlinear Panel Data Autoregressive Distributed Lag Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:23:y:2024:i:2:p:37-43. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.