Belfield, A (2025) Co-learning in living labs: Nurturing civic agency and resilience. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 969-985. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
How can living labs mobilise civic agency and resilience in citizens? What methods enable this? What roles do design-researchers play in supporting the formation of resilient communities? This paper investigates a by-product of living lab processes: how civic agency and resilience are cultivated in citizen participants. An urban living lab case study, Climate Companions, in the Poplar neighbourhood of London, UK, is investigated to understand whether and how collective civic learning supports citizens in achieving individual agency and how this can be mobilised collectively towards just transitions at the neighbourhood scale. Post-evaluation qualitative interviews and auto-ethnographic accounts show how an existing urban living lab (R-Urban Poplar) assisted its citizen participants in acquiring new capabilities, skills and knowledge(s) in support of just transitions. Co-design was integral to this process, expanding reach to new audiences, diversifying participation and supporting civic action.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | agency; civic agency; civic engagement; co-design; empowerment; resilience; resilient communities; UK; urban living lab |
| Index terms: | agency, empowerment, case study, resilient community, interview, London |
| Subjects: | communities and social development, management, Geography, sociology, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here