From play to innovation: A systematic review of serious games use in living labs

Definition of serious game

The first concept of serious games was developed in 1970 by Clark Abt. Abt (1971) defined serious games as: ‘games that are not intended to be played only for entertainment but have an educational purpose’. In the early 1970s, serious games were not widespread in science and research, as they were limited to board and card games (Cheng et al., 2015). However, with the emergence of digital games, which are electronic games played on consoles, computers, and mobile phones, in the last five decades, serious games have gained more popularity. This was especially evident with the creation of the Serious Games Initiative in 2002, in which video games were integrated with serious games for educational and research purposes (Cheng et al., 2015; Laamarti et al., 2014).

Since then, another widely used definition of serious games was provided by Zyda (2005, p. 26) as: ‘serious games are mental contest played with a computer in accordance with specific rules that uses entertainment to further government or corporate training, education, health, public policy, and strategic communication objectives’. Some researchers define serious games as games or software that combine both a ‘serious’ purpose such as learning, training, or informing with the characteristics of a game (Djaouti et al., 2011; Khenissi et al., 2015). All the definitions emphasize that the primary purpose of serious games extends beyond mere enjoyment or fun and includes educational or informational aims.

Based on both Abt and Zyda’s definitions, in this research, we define serious games as games that are designed not merely for entertainment but also for other ‘serious’ purposes, such as learning, training, communication, collaboration, decision making, and innovations, for which the activities need to gather or spread information/knowledge from or to the players.

Serious game characteristics

Games, no matter card, board, computer, or mobile can be defined as entertaining activities that share essential characteristics (Dempsey and Others, 1996). Competition, goal-oriented, challenge-based, storytelling, and fantasy elements can be identified as game characteristics (Alessi and Trollip, 2000; Lepper and Cordova, 1992). These characteristics embedded in serious games allow play to be formalized, transforming it from a free-form activity into a structured and organized one while still retaining its element of fun (El-Nasr and Gross, 2006).

Charsky (2010) summarized the evident serious game characteristics: competition and goals, challenges, and fantasy. Competition and goals are usually intertwined with each other in games. Some games have winning as goals based on competition, which often involves a rewarding system to continually motivate players. In some serious games that are designed for longer play duration, players can set their own goals through several phases of the games. Challenges set up the main tasks for games. Some games may only have a goal without setting challenges, aiming to encourage players to explore all the available resources to come up with innovative solutions. Most games have fantasy elements to motivate players. Fantasy can be further categorized as exogenous or endogenous (Kenny and Gunter, 2007; Mancuso et al., 2013). Exogenous fantasy provides positive reinforcement for correct game behaviours, such as game currency reward. Endogenous fantasy plays an important role in serious games. They are not merely rewards but integral components that actively support the player’s knowledge development, such as storytelling elements (Habgood et al., 2005).

In addition to these game characteristics, location-based, role-play, simulation, multi-player structures, and multi-scenario designs are identified as commonly used game characteristics in serious game design. Location-based elements situate gameplay within real-world contexts, supporting situated and contextualized learning (De Souza e Silva and Delacruz, 2006). Role-play enables players to assume professional or fictional identities, facilitating perspective-taking and experiential engagement (Gee, 2003). Closely related, simulation consists of rule-based modelling of real-world systems, allowing learners to experiment within the controlled environments (Fowler and Pusch, 2010). Multi-player structures can help to reshape the relational architecture of gameplay and support socially mediated learning (Tekinbas and Zimmerman, 2003). Lastly, multi-scenario provides varied contexts that promote knowledge transfer situations and increase complexity (Aldrich, 2009).

In living labs, game designers may apply different game characteristics to design well-suited games for various phases of living lab. But there is no study yet to summarize what game characteristics are most effective or relevant across these phases. Our study provides insights into this in section 4.2.

Definition of a living lab

A living lab enables collaboration between a range of stakeholders at local, regional, national, or international levels to address various challenges (Kalinauskaite et al., 2021). It aims to bridge the gap between technology development and real-world application by fostering collaborative design and multidisciplinary collaboration (Kofler, 2023). The concept originated in the early 2000s; urban environments were envisioned as laboratories for digital technologies (Marvin et al., 2018). The European Commission adopted and expanded the idea within its innovation policy agenda, leading to the establishment of European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) in 2006 (Nesti, 2015). Since then, living labs have spread globally and evolved to support sustainable development, digital transformation, and social innovation (Mačiulienė and Skaržauskienė, 2020). The movement has gained traction in academic literature over the past decade and has evolved into a broad approach to innovation (Schuurman and Leminen, 2021).

As living labs have increasingly been adopted as real-world testing environments for innovations involving stakeholders from communities, academia, public administration, and industry, a growing number of review studies have emerged. These reviews provide comprehensive definitions of living labs, trace their evolution, and assess their impacts, operational challenges, stakeholder roles, scalability, and sustainability (Forbat et al., 2025; Hossain et al., 2019; Huang and Thomas, 2021).

In this study, we adopt the definition from ENoLL, describing living lab as an open innovation ecosystem in real-life environments based on a systematic user co-creation approach that integrates research and innovation activities in communities and/or multi-stakeholder environments, placing citizens and/or end-users at the centre of the innovation process (ENoLL, 2014).

Living lab approach and living lab integrative process

The concept of living lab as a research approach is to increase the involvement and participation of end-users in the development and implementation of innovations (Zipfel et al., 2022). Therefore, the central focus of the living lab approach is to use various methods to integrate stakeholders from the beginning until the end of innovation process.

Mastelic (2019) first introduced the living lab integrative process (Supplemental Figure 1) to understand the role of co-design on energy performance through different stages of living lab approach. The author has tested the process in different studies (Mastelic, 2019; Mastelic et al., 2017; Mastelic and Genoud, 2019) and showed that it can help guiding living lab users to employ different methods in each step for better stakeholder engagement and innovation development. In this study, we adopt the widely used Mastelic’s living lab integrative process as a framework for data analysis, in order to show how serious games have been used in different stages and phases of living labs.

The process comprises several interrelated phases that are built upon one another. It begins with the practice selection phase, where a comprehensive understanding of the socioeconomic and cultural context is essential to identify innovative practices with the highest potential impact. This is followed by the stakeholder integration phase, which employs a public-private partnership framework to engage relevant actors collaboratively in the innovation process. In the barrier identification phase, insights from key stakeholders are systematically collected to uncover potential obstacles to implementation. The subsequent co-design phase involves active collaboration among academia, industry, public authorities, and civil society to formulate a shared vision and align objectives within the innovation process. Based on this vision, innovations are co-designed using participatory approaches. These innovations are then tested in real-world settings during the piloting phase, where iterative feedback is gathered to support continuous improvement. Finally, in the performance evaluation phase, ongoing monitoring and assessment are conducted throughout the pilot, generating an evidence base for potential scaling and broader application.

Search terms and databases

The search term ((“living*” OR “urban*” OR “city*” OR “transition*” OR “innovation*” OR “smart*”) AND (“lab*”) AND (“serious game*” OR “gamification*” OR “ludic activity*” OR “game-based learning*” OR “training simulation*”)) existed in title–abstract–keywords fields was used in Scopus and Web of Science.

The authors identified the terms by drawing on existing knowledge as well as the living lab and serious games literature to examine how different terms have been used to describe living labs and serious games. To ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature, this study tries to incorporate as many relevant and alternative terms as possible in the search terms. For living labs, within EmpowerUs project, it is referred to as ‘Transition Coastal Labs’. In Kemp and Scholl (2016) study, ‘City Labs’ was used. Scozzi et al. (2017) employed ‘Urban Labs’ as the same concept with living lab for managing innovations. ‘Innovation Labs’ and ‘Smart Labs’ have been used by different studies (Espinilla et al., 2018; Scozzi et al., 2017). For serious games, Becker (2021) discussed the strong interconnections between serious games, game-based learning, and gamification. The phrase ‘ludic activity’ is used in some academic discussions of serious games to emphasize playful activity used for a purpose beyond entertainment (Bunt et al., 2024). Some literature discusses serious games in the context of training simulations, such as simulation games for education, medical procedures, or other skill-based learning (Ghoman and Schmölzer, 2019; Raybourn, 2007). These training simulations are often considered as application of serious games.

The date parameters of publication were limited to 2005–2024, and the search inspected all records published until 31st December 2024. The search in Web of Science led to 104 records and the search in Scopus led to 298 records, of which 86 duplicates were removed. Then, the 316 articles were screened by title and abstract. After, books, articles not written in English, or not peer-reviewed were screened to remove as well as the articles are not consistent with the search keywords. The number of literature then cut to 160.

Selection of papers for inclusion in the review

The first selection of studies was made by reading the title and abstract and applying the inclusion criteria presented in Table 1. Sixty-five papers met the criteria and were selected for a second round of full-text screening for eligibility. Finally, twenty-nine articles (see Appendix A) were included in the study. These articles, which all present case studies, give extensive insights into the use of serious games in living labs. For the discussion part of this review, we also refer to other papers that are not included in the systematic review to discuss findings and for critical review.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Literature inclusion criteria.

1. The literature should be relevant to the research aim.

2. Focussing on the use of serious games in living lab context.

3. Including case studies in the research paper.

Coding of papers

The 29 papers meeting the inclusion criteria were coded guiding by the research questions. There are five categorizations that have been implemented for this rereview:

(1) Categorization of serious games’ originations: This category captures the origin or source of each serious game, including whether it was purpose-built specifically for the living lab, adapted from existing games, or repurposed from other contexts.

Types of serious games use in living labs

As mentioned in 2.1, there is no study yet to classify different types of serious games used across various innovation themes in living lab settings. In order to show the key functions in different games had been used in the cases, we identify five different types of games that have been widely applied as serious games within innovation process through living lab approach: geogames, simulation games, behavlet games, social-serious games, and exergames. We explain the key functions of each type of game and illustrate how they applied in the living labs in this section.

Geogames are an open-ended category of games created by translating the mechanics of classic board games into real-world geographic space (Schlieder et al., 2006). A recent updated definition describes geogames as ‘digital, analogue, or hybrid games that center on Gaia as Earth’s interconnected system of the physical environment, living organisms and its non-physical elements. They create playful experiences grounded in the use of real-world geographic data, locational knowledge, and spatial reasoning. They are purposefully designed to foster systems thinking, problem-solving, and environmental awareness, with the aim of contributing to the resilience and well-being of Earth’s systems. They are distinguished by their integration of location-based features, real-world data, and interactive, often collaborative, gameplay that reflects the complexity of environmental and societal interconnections (Poplin, 2025)’. It highlights the three main components: Gaia, locational epistemology and learning, and purpose. In geogames, players move between different locations to collect, discard, or modify resources placed throughout the area (Kiefer et al., 2006). These resources can be physical objects or virtual items that appear only on the player’s mobile device. In the living lab context, they have been mainly used in spatial planning (Cerreta et al., 2021; Gobira et al., 2024), decision-making (Fulman et al., 2020), and tourism (Grade et al., 2022). For instance, Play ReCH-a serious game framework was employed in urban regeneration initiatives. It helped to integrate different groups of players identifying local cultural heritages in real-world locations, which can further support urban planning (Cerreta et al., 2021). Grade et al. (2022) certified players’ locations through Bluetooth interactions in the CROSS City tourism application, combining with the gamification elements of rewarding, competition, and scoring system, the game incentivized players to visit more locations.

Simulation games model real-world systems or processes in a virtual environment, allowing stakeholders to experiment safely with complex scenarios. In living labs, these games serve as immersive prototypes or training tools that can be potentially used in all innovation themes. For instance, a virtual peatland management game creates a simulated landscape in which users test different land-use and rewetting strategies; the game framework lets participants ‘experience existing realities and compare diverse scenarios’ such as greenhouse-gas emissions under alternative farming systems (Witteveen et al., 2024). Likewise, virtual laboratories and city simulators replace hazardous or large-scale experiments with computer analogues, enabling low-risk co-testing. In these settings, participants navigate a 3D environment or interact with digital twins of infrastructure, practicing decisions that mirror real-world outcomes (Gordan et al., 2024; Riaz et al., 2023). Such simulation games are often integrated into mid- to later-stage living lab activities (co-design and co-testing) because they allow teams of stakeholders – from experts to end-users – to visualize impacts and iteratively refine ideas.

Behavlet games are designed using psychological ‘behavlets’, modular behavioural patterns that link in-game actions to real-world behaviour change (Cowley and Charles, 2016). These games typically present mini-games or challenges that reflect daily habits, each reinforced with feedback and quizzes, which are widely applied in behavioural change-oriented living labs. In living lab settings, behavlet games are used to tailor interventions to personal habits; by breaking down complex behaviours into patterns, they facilitate individual learning. For example, in the Save Energy game, players engage in short Flash-based mini-games representing energy-saving actions, such as turning off lights (Moutinho et al., 2010). After each mini-game, an informational screen and quiz reinforce the real-world lesson: players must answer questions about how their in-game actions relate to actual energy consumption. It acts both as a teaching tool and a data-gathering platform, linking virtual gameplay to real energy use. In terms of stakeholder engagement, behavlet games tend to support the co-testing and co-monitoring phases by providing measurable, personalized feedback. For example, by seeing their quiz scores reflect improved awareness, participants are motivated by the clear connection between game rewards and tangible outcomes (De Oliveira et al., 2010). Thus, behavlet games are well suited to foster long-term behavioural change while involving stakeholders in iteratively testing and refining interventions.

Social-serious games focus on community interaction, collective problems, and awareness-raising (Witteveen et al., 2024). They use storytelling, competition, or collaboration to address societal issues or foster social capital. For instance, Witteveen et al. (2024) portray the virtual Peatland.eu platform as a ‘social serious game’ designed to draw users into the world of peatland conservation. This web-based living lab allows diverse stakeholders (farmers, students, policymakers) to virtually explore peatland landscapes and contemplate rewetting strategies together. The explicit goal is to ‘create awareness and collaborative action’ on a shared environmental issue, all within a risk-free online simulation. Similarly, the energy dashboard suite in SmartH2O is described as a ‘social interaction and competition-based’ game, where individuals compare their energy savings on community leaderboards (Fraternali et al., 2015). In the living lab integrative process, they usually support co-designing and co-monitoring phases by building community consensus. For this, participants work (or compete) in groups, share their experiences, and co-author content or solutions. By engaging different audiences in a common game world, these social games help expand the stakeholder network and generate dialogue, making the living lab process more inclusive and democratized.

Exergames combine exercise with gameplay, typically requiring players to perform physical movements as part of the game mechanics (Konstantinidis et al., 2017). In living labs – especially those focused on health and ageing – exergames are used to engage users in active behaviour change. A prominent example is webFitForAll, an HTML5-based platform integrating motion sensors (Microsoft Kinect, Wii Balance Board) to guide seniors through standard exercise routines (Konstantinidis et al., 2017). Konstantinidis et al. report that webFitForAll was deployed in elderly living lab, where older participants performed home exercises in synchrony with on-screen avatars and received real-time feedback on their performance. This exergame was explicitly architected to match recognized fitness protocols (American College of Sports Medicine guidelines) and to log detailed physical activity data, enabling evaluation in an ‘ecologically valid living lab environment’. Other exergames in the dataset similarly target older or rehabilitating users by turning workouts into game challenges (e.g. virtual bowling or balance games) (Martin et al., 2020; Wargnier et al., 2016). In terms of stakeholder engagement, exergames activate people who might not be motivated by traditional health programmes: the gaming element (scores, levels, social play) makes sustained exercise more enjoyable. In the living lab integrative process, exergames typically feature in the piloting and evaluation stages: participants repeatedly use the game as an intervention and researchers iteratively refine it based on logged performance and user feedback.

Types of serious games use for innovation developments

As introduced in 2.2.2, living lab integrative process can help living lab users to better engage stakeholders for innovation development. This section presents the results of what the current use of serious games in the living lab integrative process is and how different functions of serious games have been used in the process for innovation development.

Supplemantal Figure 4 shows the number of case studies that applied serious games in different stages of the living lab integrative process. As mentioned in 4.1, several games are classified by more than one type of serious game, which may lead the summed values at each stage in Supplemental Figure 4 to be higher than the true number of serious games employed.

No serious games have been applied in selecting a practice and uncovering the barriers. Integrating stakeholders (n = 10) and co-designing the plan (n = 14) are the two phases employing serious games the most frequently, especially the types of simulation, behavlet, and social-serious games. Although only four cases adopted serious games in piloting an intervention, it shows a diverse application of different types of serious games in this stage. One case employed serious games evaluating performance.

Benefits of serious games use in living labs for open innovations

The biggest strength to use serious games for innovation developments is that it can simulate various scenarios in an immersive environment, enabling stakeholders to co-define the best one before testing them in real-life settings (Le Marc et al., 2010).

Through the living lab integrative process, serious games can stimulate stakeholders to engage in activities from passive mode to active mode, which has been widely used to facilitate behavioural change in health, mobility, and energy-related innovation developments. In addition, serious games can enhance the potential of co-creation and co-design through their collaborative gaming environment. Especially with the increasing benefits of virtual gaming environment, it provides opportunities and flexibility for more people to join. While some living labs may have difficulties to involve certain types of stakeholders, such as socially vulnerable groups, indigenous people, and young generations (Otieno et al., 2024), serious games in this regard offer opportunities to create different values by roleplays to mitigate the potential risks of inequity for innovations.

Some serious games can be used and sustained beyond their own living lab settings. Ehlenz et al. (2022) argue that serious games typically based upon web technologies, do not depend on multiplayer participation, and may be easily used in different innovation processes. Illustrating how serious games could be sustained in living lab sustainability and replication plan can help to increase the game reusability minimizing the need for game development in a similar innovation process.

When it comes to the individual participants in living labs, serious games advance in giving freedom and autonomy to players by allowing them to make mistakes for progressing. Since no real-life consequences are produced from the gaming environment, living lab participants can safely test their own solutions while gaining knowledge in a virtual setting (Pallot et al., 2012). Additionally, serious games have shown to have a significant contribution in enriching players’ collaboration skills. This has been commonly employed for educational innovations to develop young students’ social skills.

Limitations of serious games use in living labs for open innovations

In serious game development stage, budget constraints have been highlighted as a key limitation. This has been reflected the most by the co-designed serious games cases. For instance, the prototyping feedback of the ‘Biobot Academy’ program (i.e. improve layouts, show players’ progress, and add leader board) could not be implemented due to the budget constraints (Saleme et al., 2023). Further, this may constrain the reusability of the game. Another main issue is the complexity of games. Several studies reported that participants struggled with understanding the game storyline or objectives, raising important questions about game design quality and its influence on living lab outcomes. For instance, in the PEGASO Fit for Future (F4F) project, the participants reflected on the difficulties to understand the storylines, which directly affect their capacity to follow the game stream (Martin et al., 2020). This reflects that the effectiveness of serious games cannot be evaluated independently of their design characteristics. If narrative coherence, game characteristics, or rule clarity are weak, the game may fail to support stakeholder engagement or collaborative learning, regardless of its intended purpose. In such cases, limited outcomes may reflect shortcomings in game design rather than limitations of the serious game approach itself.

Serious games can be employed in multiple living lab activities; however, several studies raise concerns regarding the extent to which game-generated outcomes can be relied upon as actionable inputs (e.g. Duin and Baalsrud Hauge, 2008; Fitz-Walter et al., 2017). This tension highlights a structural challenge that the playful and exploratory nature of serious games can foster creativity, but it may simultaneously reduce practical constraints, leading to outputs that lack feasibility. Addressing this issue may require stronger contextual framing within the game environment, clearer boundary conditions, or encouraging participants to align proposals with real-world limitations. ‘Betting on the wrong horse’ can be a dilemma faced by living practitioners. While some of the living labs lack of capacity to develop their own games, a variety of publicly available games exist that could, in principle, be adapted for different living lab activities. However, selecting the most suitable game is challenging. There are no established criteria, frameworks, or centralized databases that guide practitioners in identifying context-suited serious games for specific living lab objectives.

Beyond living lab settings, two challenges constrain the broader use of serious games: limited replicability and insufficient maintenance. Most of the games used in the case studies were tailor-designed for the living labs, which may enhance the contextual relevance but restrict transferability to other innovation settings. At the same time, many games lack long-term technical supports, which shortens their lifespan and reduces reusability. Together, it hinders these serious games further applications as shared innovation resources.

Regarding individual players in living labs, lack of interest in games can be a generic issue for some people. Not all stakeholders are equally receptive to playful or gamified formats, which can affect engagement and outcome quality. To mitigate this risk, facilitators may emphasize the ‘serious’ purpose and practical relevance of the game, clearly linking gameplay activities to real-world innovation goals. Additionally, structured guidance and explicit output expectations can help ensure that participants focus on delivering meaningful and actionable results.