Charalambous, N; Panayi, C; Mady, C; Augustinčić, T and Berc, D (2025) Youth engagement in urban living labs: Tools, methods and pedagogies. Buildings & Cities, 6(1), pp. 1061-1080. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Empowering youth in urban governance is essential to align immediate societal concerns with long-term sustainability. Urban living labs (ULLs) provide a valuable framework for embedding youth perspectives into urban decision-making by offering real-world settings for co-creation, experimentation and learning. They have also emerged as pedagogical tools within higher education institutions, yet their use in this context remains insufficiently explored. Despite their growing application, ULLs lack methodological consistency, with diverse conceptualisations creating challenges for standardisation, evaluation and transferability. This tension is especially evident in youth-oriented ULLs, where institutional barriers and age-related asymmetries complicate sustained engagement. Comparative and cross-contextual studies remain limited. This paper addresses these gaps through the Participatory Skills for Urban Governance (PS-U-GO) project, which implements youth-focused ULLs in four European cities. The project follows a three-tiered method: a comparative analysis of existing cases; the development of a coherent yet adaptable framework structured in three phases (design and initiation, operation, evaluation and feedback); and iterative implementation and evaluation. Initial findings demonstrate that while flexibility is essential, methodological coherence in structuring learning, participation and evaluation is crucial for scalability and long-term impact. The project offers a replicable, context-sensitive model for embedding ULLs within both higher education institutions and local governance systems.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | co-design; empowerment; participatory methods; urban governance; urban living labs; young people; youth participation |
| Index terms: | empowerment, comparative analysis, experiment, decision-making, coherence, higher education institution, governance, urban governance, standardization, pedagogy, co-creation, implementation |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, management, teaching methods, decision analysis, educational institutions, business, data collection methods, data analysis and analytics, design process, human factors and perception, urban planning, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Education, Quality Management, Governance, Research Practice, Human Resources, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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