[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"item-2296":3},{"id":4,"title":5,"url":6,"summary":7,"summary_zh":8,"content":9,"source_name":10,"source_url":6,"published_at":11,"category":12,"cover_url":9,"hotness":13,"is_selected":14,"score":15,"score_detail":16,"sources":24,"tags":26,"view_count":32,"doi":33,"paper":34,"created_at":52},2296,"A critical analysis of co-production in a living lab through citizen-centric innovation for climate-resilient agri-food systems","https:\u002F\u002Fdoi.org\u002F10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1906832","Introduction Living Labs (LLs) are increasingly used by scientists and practitioners to support participatory innovation, yet little is known about how such approaches function when introduced through externally funded projects in low-income contexts. Methods This article examines the establishment of a Living Lab for People (LL4P) in Nandi County, Kenya, between 2022 and 2025. The study draws on repeated interviews with advisory board members, workshop observations, project documents, and institutional reports to analyse how the LL4P was designed, governed, and implemented in practice. Results The findings show that the development of a locally embedded LL depended less on technical innovation processes than on negotiations around power, ownership, inclusion, and institutional legitimacy. A key turning point was the decision by the initiating research team to transfer agenda-setting and decision-making responsibilities to the LL4P advisory board, which strengthened local ownership and agency. However, broad stakeholder representation did not automatically resolve tensions related to power asymmetries, governance ambiguity, or differing understandings of inclusion and gender transformation. Discussion The paper argues that LLs in agri-food systems should be understood as social and political processes rather than primarily technical innovation platforms. Based on the Nandi County experience, we propose a revised conceptualization of the LL4P as a citizen-centric and place-based innovation space that emphasizes co-design, learning, and locally negotiated governance. The study contributes empirical insights into how externally initiated LLs can gradually transition toward more locally led and context-responsive forms of innovation governance.","引言 “生活实验室”（Living Labs, LLs）日益被科学家和实践者用于支持参与式创新，然而对于此类方法在低收入背景下通过外部资助项目引入时如何运作，人们知之甚少。方法 本文考察了2022年至2025年间在肯尼亚南迪郡建立的一个“以人为本的生活实验室”（Living Lab for People, LL4P）。本研究基于对顾问委员会成员的多次访谈、研讨会观察、项目文件及机构报告，分析了该LL4P在实践中是如何设计、治理和实施的。结果 研究结果表明，一个深度嵌入当地的生活实验室的发展，与其说取决于技术创新过程，不如说取决于围绕权力、所有权、包容性和制度合法性所展开的协商。一个关键转折点是发起研究团队决定将议程设定和决策职责移交给LL4P顾问委员会，这增强了地方所有权和能动性。然而，广泛的利益相关方代表性并未自动化解与权力不对称、治理模糊性以及对包容性和性别转型的不同理解相关的紧张关系。讨论 本文认为，农业食品系统中的生活实验室应被理解为社会和政治过程，而非主要是技术创新平台。基于南迪郡的经验，我们提出对LL4P的修正性概念化，将其视为一个以公民为中心、基于地方的创新空间，强调共同设计、学习和地方协商治理。本研究为外部发起的生活实验室如何逐步过渡到更具地方主导性和情境回应性的创新治理形式提供了经验性见解。",null,"Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems","2026-09-11T00:00:00Z","论文",10,false,70,{"impact":17,"substance":18,"depth":19,"authority":20,"freshness":21,"relevant":22,"comment":23},12,20,17,13,8,1,"以肯尼亚Nandi County活实验室为案例，实证揭示外部资助型参与式创新中权力、所有权与制度合法性的博弈，对农业信息化项目的本土化治理有借鉴价值，但属境外案例、影响范围有限。",[25],{"name":10,"url":6},[27,28,29,30,31],"数字乡村","肯尼亚","气候韧性农业","农业治理","参与式创新",0,"10.3389\u002Ffsufs.2026.1906832",{"doi":33,"openalex_id":35,"authors":36,"venue":10,"cited_by_count":32,"oa_url":6,"card":45,"direction":49,"ingested_from":51},"W7212314804",[37,40,42],{"name":38,"orcid":39},"Birgit Habermann","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0001-7130-670X",{"name":41,"orcid":9},"Kibet Walter",{"name":43,"orcid":44},"Ryan Nehring","https:\u002F\u002Forcid.org\u002F0000-0002-0867-7820",{"tldr":46,"method":47,"finding":48,"direction":49,"opportunity":50},"分析肯尼亚Nandi县生活实验室的共建过程，揭示其本质是社会政治过程而非技术平台。","对咨询委员会成员重复访谈、工作坊观察及项目文档的定性分析。","权力转移给地方咨询委员会增强了自主权，但利益相关方广泛参与未自动解决权力不对称与治理模糊。","数字乡村与农业信息化","可研究外部资助项目退出后，生活实验室如何维持地方主导的治理与创新网络。","openalex","2026-09-13T23:30:07.447748Z"]