Urban living labs (ULLs) are increasingly recognised as strategic sites for experimentation in sustainability transitions. However, in sites of informality and complex urban governance, their transformative potential remains under-examined. Based on assemblage and actor-network theory, this article develops a framework to explore how ULLs reconfigure actor networks, affective relations and circulations of knowledge. Drawing on case studies in Ajmer, India, and Durban, South Africa, we examine how ULLs foster self-organisation and mediate new forms of authority and influence. In Ajmer, chronic water insecurity catalysed slow, trust-based collaboration among women’s groups, universities and municipalities. In Durban, major floods led to the scaling of a community-based flood early warning system through horizontal peer exchange. Despite contextual differences, both cases reveal the importance of mediators, inscription devices and affective intensity in enabling urban transformation. We argue for an expanded view of ULLs as affective-material assemblages capable of producing contingent, relational and plural futures through iterative, non-linear pathways of change.
AkrichM. (1992). The description of technical objects. In BijkerW. E. & LawJ. (Eds), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). MIT Press.
2.
AndersonB. (2012). Affect and biopower: Towards a politics of life. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 28–43.
3.
AnfinsenM. (2021). Between stability and change: Tensions in the Norwegian electric mobility transition. Social Studies of Science, 51(6), 895–913.
4.
ArboledaM. (2015). In the nature of the non-city: Expanded infrastructural networks and the political ecology of planetary urbanisation. Antipode, 47(1), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12115
5.
AvelinoF., & RotmansJ. (2009). Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 543–569.
6.
BarcenaA. (2025). Dakar’s flood drainage canals: Assembling urban subjectivities, transforming political spaces. Environment and Urbanization, 37(1), 136–158.
7.
BarcenaA., & BahadurA. (2024). The SECURe framework: An approach to thinking about power and politics in co-produced urban resilience. IIED.
8.
BowkerG. C., & StarS. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT Press.
9.
BulkeleyH., & BetsillM. (2013). Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 136–154.
10.
BulkeleyH., & Castán BrotoV. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.
FrantzeskakiN., & LoorbachD. (2010). Towards governing infrasystem transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1292–1301.
31.
FranzY. (2015). Designing social living labs in urban research. Info, 17(4), 53–66.
32.
GantnerG. (2025). Governing urban transformation through experimentation: Political work and institutional anchoring in sustainability transitions. Urban Studies, 62(3), 421–439.
33.
GeelsF. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
34.
GeelsF. W., & SchotJ. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.
35.
GordonD. J. (2018). Global urban climate governance in three and a half parts: Experimentation, coordination, integration (and contestation). WIREs Climate Change, 9(6), e546.
36.
GranbergM., & ElanderI. (2007). Local governance and climate change: Reflections on the Swedish experience. Local Environment, 12(5), 537–548.
37.
HaconM., BarcenaA., & KadiriM. (2025). Low-carbon energy infrastructure: Where affective relations co-evolve with governmentality projects. Geoforum, 166, 104425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104425
HoogheL., & MarksG. (2001). Multi-level governance and European integration. Rowman & Littlefield.
40.
HoogmaR., KempR., SchotJ., & TrufferB. (2002). Experimenting for sustainable transport: The approach of strategic niche management. Routledge.
41.
HuangR., & ThomasN. (2021). A systematic literature review of urban living labs in sustainability transitions. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(3), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1433
42.
IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PörtnerH.-O., RobertsD. C., TignorM., PoloczanskaE. S., MintenbeckK., AlegríaA., CraigM., LangsdorfS., LöschkeS., MöllerV., OkemA., & RamaB., Eds.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/9781009325844
43.
KarvonenA., & van HeurB. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392.
44.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action. Harvard University Press.
45.
LatourB. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford University Press.
46.
LawJ. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379–393.
47.
LawJ., & CallonM. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In BijkerW. E. & LawJ. (Eds), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 21–52). MIT Press.
48.
LawhonM., ErnstsonH., & SilverJ. (2014). Provincializing urban political ecology: Towards a situated UPE through African urbanism. Antipode, 46(2), 497–516.
49.
MaasenS. (2012). Shifting boundaries of responsibility: Governance and science. In StehrN. (Ed.) Knowledge and democracy: A 21st century perspective (pp. 75–91). Routledge.
50.
Manuel-NavarreteD., & PellingM. (2015). Subjectivity and the politics of transformation in response to development and environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 35, 558–569.
51.
MarxK. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy. Volume 1. Translated by FowkesB.. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867).
52.
MassumiB. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press.
McFarlaneC. (2011). Assemblage and critical urbanism. City, 15(2), 204–224.
55.
McGuirkP., BulkeleyH., & DowlingR. (2014). Practices, programs and projects of urban carbon governance. Geoforum, 52, 137–147.
56.
MguniP., HerslundL. B., AbramsA. L., CardenK., TanyanyiwaC., McLachlanJ., SchneuwlyR., & ArmitageN. (2025). Scaling deep at the margins: Coproduction of nature-based solutions as decolonial research praxis in Cape Town. npj Urban Sustainability, 5, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-025-00258-0
57.
MiltonK. (2002). Loving nature: Towards an ecology of emotion. Routledge.
58.
MonniS., & RaesF. (2008). Multilevel climate policy: The case of the European Union, the Netherlands and the city of Rotterdam. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(2), 123–132.
59.
MüllerM., & SchurrC. (2016). Assemblage thinking and actor-network theory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 217–229.
60.
Muñoz-EricksonT. A., CuttsB. B., LarsonE. K., DarbyK. J., NeffM., WutichA., & MillerT. R. (2017). Demystifying governance and its role for transitions in urban social–ecological systems. Ecosystem Services, 24, 39–49.
61.
MurdochJ. (1998). The spaces of actor-network theory. Geoforum, 29(4), 357–374.
62.
NightingaleA. J. (2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environment and Planning D, 24(2), 165–185.
63.
NightingaleA. J. (2011a). Beyond design principles: Subjectivity, emotion, and the (ir)rational commons. Society & Natural Resources, 24(2), 119–132.
64.
NightingaleA. J. (2011b). Bounding difference: Intersectionality and the material production of gender, caste, class and environment in Nepal. Geoforum, 42(2), 153–162.
65.
NightingaleA. J. (2013). Fishing for nature: The politics of subjectivity and emotion in Scottish inshore fisheries management. Environment and Planning A, 45(10), 2362–2378. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45340
66.
O’DonoghueS., SutherlandC., & LeckH. (2025). The development of the Palmiet catchment rehabilitation project’s community-based flood early warning system (CBFEWS): Full briefing document. ICLEI Africa. https://africa.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/FINAL-CBFEWS-full-briefing-doc-2.pdf
67.
PorterT. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The Pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.
68.
RagusE., SutherlandC., MandersonL., & MoyerE. (2025). Sculpting stories: Methods to unsettle knowledge production in disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 34(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-01-2024-0034
69.
RavenR., SchotJ., & BerkhoutF. (2011). Space and scale in socio-technical transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 63–78.
70.
RydinY. (2012). Using actor–network theory to understand planning practice. Planning Theory, 11(1), 23–45.
71.
SchotJ., & GeelsF. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
72.
ShawI. G. R. (2012). Towards an evental geography. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 613–627.
73.
SimV., MoodleyS., ButheleziS., MdwabaM., MazekaA., SutherlandC., & SoutoA. (2019). Quarry Road West informal settlement: An overview. Urban Futures Centre, Durban University of Technology.
74.
SimpsonN. P. (2019). Accommodating landscape-scale shocks: Lessons on transition from Cape Town and Puerto Rico. Geoforum, 102, 226–229.
75.
SinghN. M. (2013). The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects. Geoforum, 47, 37–47.
76.
SmithA., & RavenR. (2012). What is protective space?Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036.
77.
SmithA., StirlingA., & BerkhoutF. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510.
SteinbergP. E. (2016). Navigating to multiple horizons: Toward a geography of ocean-space. The Professional Geographer, 68(3), 451–457.
80.
SultanaF. (2009). Fluid lives: Subjectivities, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. Gender, Place & Culture, 16(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690903003942
81.
SutherlandC. (2025). Learning from flood risk: Governing adaptation through situated experimentation in Durban. Environment and Urbanization, 37(1), 85–102.
82.
SutherlandC., ScottD., & HoughtonJ. (2024). Community-based flood risk governance and knowledge co-production in Southern African cities. Climate and Development, 16(3), 201–214.
83.
ThriftN. (2000). Afterwords. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(2), 213–255.
University Grants Commission. (2022). Guidelines for fostering social responsibility & community engagement in higher education institutions in India. https://www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/9944839_Guidelines-for-Fostering-Social-Responsibility-and-Community-Engagement-in-Higher-Education-Institutions-in-India.pdf
86.
van der HeijdenJ. (2023). Theories of urban governance. Edward Elgar.
87.
VernayA.-L., MulderK. F., & KampL. M. (2013). Exploring the socio-technical dynamics of systems of innovation: Insights from the urban water sector. Technology in Society, 35(4), 199–210.
88.
von WirthT., FuenfschillingL., FrantzeskakiN., & CoenenL. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: Mechanisms and strategies for systemic change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 221, 537–549.
89.
VoytenkoY., McCormickK., EvansJ., & SchliwaG. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.
90.
WhileA., JonasA. E. G., & GibbsD. (2010). From sustainable development to carbon control: Eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35(1), 76–93.
91.
WolframM., & FrantzeskakiN. (2016). Cities and systemic change for sustainability. Sustainability, 8(2), 144.
