ΔENIGMA is a national research infrastructure with various work packages (WP) studying the water and sediment dynamics for nature-based, flexible, and adaptive flood risk management in the Dutch Delta's river-estuary-coast continuum. WP6 joins efforts between TUDelft, Wageningen, Twente, and Deltares Labs to study and facilitate interactions bridging related knowledgecommunication- action gaps. The WP6 designs various tools, such as serious games, using digital and physical interfaces to facilitate collaborations between societal and academic actors while joining efforts within, across, and beyond WPs. Collaborative interactions are considered productive when achieving individual, group, and societal learning about the problem and proposed solutions, the norms and values behind, and the necessary (collective) action f (Barth et al., 2023). This paper presents the TU Delft Game Lab+’s prototype, developed with ΔENIGMA WP2 and TU Delft Serious Game Design students (Kontaxopoulou et al., 2024).

To support the transition to integrated, naturebased river-basin management, institutions supporting such strategies and practices need to be established while existing institutions hindering the transition need to be gradually broken down and replaced (Fig. 1). Institutions play a vital role in transitions since they are the rules which determine the range of acceptable behaviour in society and how interactions are organised (North, 1990). This study draws lessons from the influence of different institutional frameworks in transitions towards nature-based river management by comparing institutional developments in the Dutch "Room for the River” programme and the Flemish “Plan Sigma”.

Living labs have emerged as a long-term, collaborative approach to addressing complex societal challenges, such as sustainable land and water management and climate change adaption. While these transdisciplinary environments foster continuous knowledge exchange and interactions among actors from diverse disciplines and sectors, the role of learning in realizing the impacts of living labs on participating actors and broader society is often underexplored. This paper aims to identify and analyze learning that occurs within a sequence of co-creative activities and their resulting outcomes, using the concept of ‘learning pathways’. The ‘living lab learning framework’ provides a systematic approach to organizing and categorizing living lab activities, enabling to infer learning pathways. An ex-post analysis of an empirical case study on a climate adaptation project, KLIMAP, resulted in seven distinct learning pathways: 1) harnessing collective integrated knowledge, 2) building collaborative networks, 3) enhancing stakeholder capacity, 4) adapting and contextualizing knowledge, 5) diffusing knowledge, 6) facilitating co-creation, and 7) reflecting on learning. These pathways were developed by examining the types of learning activities, their processes, and the entities involved, linking them to the outcomes achieved. The findings highlight that learning pathways contribute to identifying outcomes and broader impacts of living labs.

Complex knowledge from different stakeholders is vital to solve increasingly complex societal challenges (Stock & Burton, 2011). However, stakeholders involved in Self Supporting River Systems (SSRS, 2025), experience that integration and utilization of such knowledge is challenging. To start solving such barriers, different stakeholders need to understand each other's knowledge explicitly, preventing potential biases, cherry picking, and misinterpretation, to facilitate efficient and transparent transdisciplinary knowledge processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi., 1995; Derksen., 2014). When combining knowledge among stakeholders, barriers can arise due to differences in understanding, and valuation of knowledge deriving from differing perceptions, goals and workways (Böcher and Krott., 2016; Spaapen and van Drooge., 2011; Derksen., 2014; de Vries et al., 2024). E.g., scientists use knowledge to describe and explain the world, policymakers to influence development, and companies to earn and solve practical problems, all implying different criteria and valuations for knowledge (Böcher and Krött., 2016; Derksen, 2014). Additionally, knowledge can be disseminated in sub-optimal ways, possibly also due to different preferred disseminationstructures (Muhonenet al.,2018; Benneworth and Olmos-Penuela., 2018; Spaapen and van Drooge., 2011). As such, the innovative capacity of knowledge depends significantly on politics, established structures and rules, funding, and partnership patterns (Ahmed et al, 2023; Nonaka and Takeuchi., 1995). For innovation capacity of SSRS to be improved, there is a need to understand barriers to knowledge uptake.

Complex issues like sustainable land and water management demand a transdisciplinary and collaborative approach, such as that of living labs, bridging between science, policy, and society. Living labs facilitate active collaboration among diverse actors from public and private sectors, research institutes, and civil society, creating an environment that fosters innovations to address environmental challenges. However, the impact of these labs is often assessed based only on their immediate results, overlooking the potential effects of learning during co-creation activities. Thus, this paper develops a framework that allows to capture learning in a living lab co-creative environment. In response to widespread calls for an epistemological basis for living labs, the study bases the framework on relevant learning theories. First, the literature dealing with learning theories relevant to the characteristics of living labs is reviewed. The relevant theories are identified as: behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, experimental, situated, social, organizational, transformative, and connectivism. Next, the insights on learning theories are used in developing a Living Lab Learning Framework with three interacting components: A. Learning types (what), B. Learning process (how), and C. Learning levels (who), contributing to learning outcomes. The framework distinguishes content, capacity, and network as learning types; intentional or incidental as learning processes; and individual, team, and organization as learning levels. Finally, the potential application of the framework during the initiation, implementation, and evaluation project phases of living labs is highlighted. The framework is envisaged to extend the impacts of living labs beyond immediate results by providing a systematic method for assessing learning and its outcomes and generating insights regarding future improvements in the configuration of living lab learning environments.

In this paper, we closely examine the case of the Marker Wadden, a nature restoration project with recreational opportunities in the Dutch lake Markermeer. The Marker Wadden – a mud island concept – has been constructed using locally sourced building materials (sediments from the lake) and is designed to withstand natural dynamics such as storms and waves. Lack of funding and financing has been repeatedly discussed and identified as a key barrier to implementing and upscaling ecological restoration, or Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in general. This highlights the importance of studying a unique case, such as the Marker Wadden, where this well-documented barrier has been overcome. We aim to identify the financial arrangements made and how they came about. We adopt the rounds model (a policy analysis theory), apply evidence triangulation, and employ a theoretical framework that captures an institutional perspective on financial barriers. We find the Marker Wadden project to be an example of public and private co-funding for ecosystem restoration. We further find revenue generation from recreational activities leads to partial cost-recovery, and non-public funding sources are unlocked due to the involvement of an NGO. We also find the pre-investment phase to be instrumental in overcoming financial barriers during later (implementation) phases. We surface the main drivers that led to funding for the Marker Wadden project, reveal opportunities for investment planning for NbS, and expose trade-offs in terms of (democratic) equity, efficiency, and environmental outcomes resulting from the combined public, private, and philanthropic co-funding arrangements used.

Ports are increasingly ‘greening’ operations to protect their ‘license to operate’ by integrating social-environmental considerations into their management and reporting on their sustainability performance. In this research, we develop a novel method for port sustainability performance (PSP) assessment that combines science-based knowledge with place-based contextualisation. Specifically, we address a recognised challenge of combining global (‘top-down’) techno-scientifically oriented indicators with place-based locally relatable (‘bottom-up’) contexts in sustainability performance, in addition to addressing limitations encountered in empirical verification. First, a critical evaluation of the international literature on port sustainability assessments is undertaken to distil commonalities in global performance indicators, and to identify typical frames used in the design of sustainability performance indices. We apply this learning, together with place-based experiential knowledge, to develop a science-based framework for a Port Sustainability Performance (PSP) Index that is explicitly aligned with the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs). We then apply a co-design process to demonstrate local customisation of the index to derive place-based quantifiable measures and targets. Further, for easy-to-use empirical verification, a simple spreadsheet is applied to develop a flexible weighted scoring matrix. The matrix uses place-based rating systems for selected measures and associated targets, and aggregates allocated scores into informative outputs. Finally, the concept of Circles of Sustainability is adapted for ports to visually display sustainability performance, in alignment with related SDGs. This research contributes to bridging the science-practice divide in reporting on port sustainability performance.

A financing gap is seen as a crucial barrier, hampering the further uptake and upscaling of Nature-based Solutions (NbS). However, it is not always clear what is meant by this, nor is it clear why this barrier exists and persists. The aim of this paper is to generate an enhanced understanding of financial barriers to NbS. This is accomplished through first conceptually and theoretically clarifying the difference between funding and financing and then exploring these through an integrative literature review. We expose three different dimensions of financial barriers in NbS projects, namely the occurrence of multiple types of funding gaps, the occurrence of multiple types of financing gaps, and the particular and complex cost structures of NbS. NbS funding gaps can be broken down into public funding gaps, private funding gaps, and funding gaps specific for lifecycle phases, activities, and cost types. Bridging the funding gap is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for bridging the finance gap and financing alone cannot solve a funding problem. We further find that these different dimensions of financial barriers can be explained by the misalignment between the characteristics of NbS and the characteristics of our existing institutions. These misalignments occur through different institutional mechanism, including (i) Funders’ preferences, (ii) Revenue generation enablers, (iii) Justification requirements, (iv) Funders’ regimes, (v) Financiers’ preferences and (vi) Finance application processes. All mechanisms influence the occurrence of public and private funding and financing gaps and they influence the cost structure of NbS, in particular transaction costs. The results of this analysis suggest that overcoming NbS funding and financing challenges requires a systemic, multi-level approach as the barriers to project implementation are not all located within a project's sphere of influence or control.

For many years now, various knowledge evidence has indicated that the Dutch land and water systems are reaching their limits. Thus, instead of manipulating the water and subsurface to achieve the desired functions, functions need to follow what the land and water system can offer. Consequently, in 2022, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water forwarded an innovative and transitional approach of letting water and soil guide the policymaking, namely ‘water and soil guiding’. In this light, this research on progress paper aims to understand the cumulative role that living labs and similar projects existing before the policy guide had in the institutionalization of this policy guide. Further, ‘water and soil guiding’ is just at an initiation stage. This paper further tries to understand in what capacity can living labs support the operationalization, execution, and monitoring of this policy guide. In our preliminary finding, a direct link between the establishment of policy guide and the living labs existing before this establishment has not been formulated yet. However, indirect links such as delivering hard knowledge evidence, and formation and expansion of networks with relevant stakeholders has been recognized as indirect links.

Nature-based living labs combine the elements of nature-based solution design with a living lab context to address social and environmental resilience challenges. There is a need to deepen insights on the characteristics of the emergent phenomenon of nature-based living labs, with respect to their predecessors. Accordingly, the paper first develops an outline of how living labs evolved into nature-based living labs, informed by bibliometric analysis. Second, the unique characteristics of nature-based living labs are identified using a systematic literature review. Finally, the core characteristics of living labs are determined, and nature-based living labs are placed within this context. Initial living labs had a strong technological focus, which proliferated into diverse application domains and regions after the European Network of Living Labs was established and expanded. Urban living labs emerged as a significant multidisciplinary and geographically specific domain, while nature-based living labs are inherently sustainability-oriented and consider ecosystem processes, interactions, and natural materials. Next, the paper identifies nine characteristics of nature-based living labs, five of which are always present, namely: (i) real-life spatial context and multi-scale, (ii) innovation and learning, (iii) user-centric, (iv) multi-actor involvement and (v) sustainability-oriented multiple benefits. Then, the four core characteristics of living labs, the variation within these characteristics, and how these align with the characteristics of nature-based living labs are clarified. Finally, the need for research on living labs across application domains and regions is highlighted, so that the global applicability of these local, user-centric, innovative approaches can be established.

The necessity for evidence-based and socially applicable knowledge in policy processes underscores the importance of the science, policy, and society interface. This interface is increasingly desired to obtain a holistic perspective by integrating sectoral and interdisciplinary knowledge to address complex socio-technical issues (Eberle et al., 2021). Living labs have emerged as promising vehicle fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders from academia, public and private organizations, and civil society to drive innovative solutions. While living labs provide contextual understanding through real-life experiments and engage diverse stakeholders, they do not inherently enhance policy integration (Willems et al., 2023). To leverage the knowledge and resources from living labs to policymaking, learning from these environments must be scaled up or replicated to tackle similar challenges elsewhere. Consequently, living labs must showcase their impact through tangible results (innovations), enhance stakeholder capacities, and facilitate iterative learning for continual improvement. While there have been some efforts in scaling up and iterating outcomes as well as improving the impacts, understanding the occurrence of learning within living labs is often overlooked.

Thus, in this study, we analyse the learning dynamics in living labs, recognizing that attention to learning within co-creative environments can help realize the desired outcomes and impacts by exploring what is being learned, who is learning, and how learning occurs (Bhatta et al., 2023). To this end, we first developed a learning framework for living labs, identifying (i) types of learning as content-, capacity- and networking-related, (ii) levels of learning as individual-, group- and organization/societal-level, and (iii) processes of learning as intentional and incidental. Subsequently, we applied this framework to the KLIMAP project, which aimed to develop climate adaptive water and soil management pathways in Dutch sandy soil region. Our analysis uncovered several evidence of various learning types, levels and processes linked to the project’s outcomes. An indirect yet significant policy outcome of KLIMAP is the attention to water and soil management in Dutch policymaking through the water-bodem sturend framework. This outcome is attributed to years of research and numerous climate adaptation, land, and water management projects, including KLIMAP. Additionally, we formulated recommendations to enhance the impacts of the living labs as, ensuring inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, emphasizing effective communication among project stakeholders and with the wider public, providing accessible content through diverse mediums like audio-video, flyer and text, and acknowledging the time and labour-intensive nature of these interactions.

Learning is an integral part of living lab activities and outcomes. This research in progress paper aims to understand the learning aspects in the collaborative activities and innovative outputs of living labs by developing an analytical learning framework for living labs and applying it to the case study of KLIMAP living labs in the Netherlands. The research adopts a mix of approaches, including qualitative document analysis, interviews and participation in brainstorming and knowledge sessions. The study develops a working analytical living labs learning framework. The preliminary findings of the framework in the KLIMAP living lab show different types of knowledge on content, capacity and network are intentionally or incidentally produced at different levels (individual, team, community) of a living lab.

A large sandy peninsula and beach were realized in Dutch coastal waters in the Sand Engine pilot project. In addition to the benefits for flood protection, the Sand Engine generates multiple other societal values. It provides a new type of landscape of uncommon size along the Holland coast where nature, culture, history and the future come together. In this article we discuss the added value of the Sand Engine for culture and the arts, its iconic value and the development of knowledge in diverse sciences, most notably morphology, archaeology and palaeontology, as well as its educational function. We explore how different governance modes can influence how the added value is generated and what type of societal value arises. We distinguish four different governance modes related to the level of control exercised by authorities: directive, co-creational, facilitatory and observational. Different modes can co-exist and may change over time. For the Sand Engine we find that the knowledge development was highly directed, archaeology and palaeontology were facilitated, while an observational mode was employed towards arts and culture. The study leads to the inference that when the physical and societal space is created, societal value-added initiatives emerge.

Offshore wind farm development is a is a highly complex process. The societal and political pressure to implement is high while environmental responses and future developments in the global energy network are uncertain. Moreover, many interests in maritime space are at stake. The dependency on knowledge for decision-making is high, but the capacity to use knowledge is limited. In this paper we investigate the role of ecosystem knowledge in offshore wind farm planning and management. We have identified 4 types of research arenas: (1) government driven (e.g., monitoring programs) (2) subsidized research (national or EU), (3) industrial or PPS (Public-private partnerships), and (4) research by universities. This study considers the way in which knowledge from different arenas is or could be taken up and used in policy. We identify that particularly government-driven research (monitoring) is used in policymaking. The analysis of policy documents, in-depth expert interviews and focus groups reveals that the distance between knowledge developers and knowledge users may differentiate from purely transactional relations to co-production-relations. However, co-production is rare beyond the monitoring programs directly initiated by the government agencies.

The increasingly active role of stakeholders in the development of innovative nature-based solutions calls for appropriate instruments to support and realise added value from their involvement. In this paper we apply a newly developed instrument “Cooperation for Added Value” (Co-Add) to a study area on the Dutch coast. The instrument draws on participatory game theory and policy analysis to provide a theoretically sound structure for facilitating interactions aimed at identifying shared opportunities and potential coalitions for cooperation. The application in the case study Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks affirmed that the Co-Add instrument systematically facilitated stakeholders in exploring potentially promising opportunities and gaining insight in the added value of engaging in diverse cooperations. Stakeholders came to understand which solutions were more achievable than others and what was needed to enable implementation in terms of collaboration, including the role of their own organization. Furthermore, social dilemmas in which a particular nature-based solution is attractive to a coalition of stakeholders but is not the most beneficial solution for a particular individual stakeholder, became clear. This represents a practical contribution to the range of participatory instruments that can be applied in societally challenging complex problems that require collaboration for their resolution.

In 2012 the Dutch High-Water Protection Programme (HWPP) was initiated. This programme prioritised dike strengthening projects for the near future with a yearly budget of around 350 million Euros. A safety assessment 2011–2013 indicated the need to strengthen 748 km of dikes. To achieve this, it was recognised that generation and dissemination of state-of-the-art-knowledge was necessary. For this purpose, four Spatial and Technical Research Projects (STRPs) were initiated. The challenge for these STRPs is to generate and disseminate the developed knowledge that is relevant for other dike strengthening projects within the HWPP. This paper examines whether the STRPs have successfully undertaken activities to generate and disseminate new knowledge to relevant stakeholders. We examine how the generation and dissemination of knowledge from the STRPs to the HWPP-projects and water management organisations in the Netherlands took place and might be further facilitated.