Transformative Arenas: Spatializing Indigenous Epistemologies through an Urban Living Lab in Vietnam's Highlands

Transformative Arenas: Spatializing Indigenous Epistemologies through an Urban Living Lab in Vietnam's Highlands | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Transformative Arenas: Spatializing Indigenous Epistemologies through an Urban Living Lab in Vietnam's Highlands Ha Huy Thach, Le Quoc Thinh, Le Nguyen Viet Lam This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Highland ethnic communities in Vietnam face severe spatial ruptures due to top-down normative planning that overlooks indigenous cultural practices. Addressing this, this study transforms the Mang But settlement (Quang Ngai) into an Urban Living Lab (ULL) to co-produce an adaptive spatial planning framework. Engaging the Xo Dang people as co-researchers within a Quintuple Helix model, the research translates intangible cultural heritage—such as heterarchical governance and sacred water rituals—into empirical urban design parameters using GIS and iterative co-design. This process spatializes indigenous knowledge, replacing rigid grid-iron layouts with a resilient radial morphology centered on the communal Rong house and ecological buffer zones. By validating intangible heritage as official spatial data, this framework introduces a new epistemology for urban design, demonstrating how community-led practices can foster socio-ecological sustainability. Urban Living Labs New Epistemologies Co-design Intangible Cultural Heritage Adaptive Spatial Planning Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Contemporary urbanization processes are generating profound socio-spatial disruptions worldwide, as modern infrastructure expansion continues to exert pressure on ecological systems, cultural landscapes, and social cohesion (Chen et al., 2023 ; Yu et al., 2024 ). Urban design scholarship has repeatedly demonstrated that these pressures are not merely technical or environmental, but epistemological in nature—rooted in dominant planning paradigms that privilege standardized, positivist, and top-down forms of knowledge while marginalizing context-specific socio-cultural practices. Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than in indigenous and ethnic minority settlements, where imposed normative planning models frequently produce severe “spatial ruptures” that fracture the organic relationships between settlement morphology, cultural institutions, and the natural environment. In Vietnam’s Central Highlands, indigenous ethnic minority communities are undergoing rapid spatial transformation driven by state-led urbanization, resettlement programs, and infrastructure development (Tran, 2016 ). These interventions typically rely on lowland-derived planning epistemologies—such as grid-iron layouts, rigid cadastral subdivision, and standardized housing typologies—that are poorly aligned with highland socio-ecological realities. As a result, traditional settlement morphologies that once encoded indigenous governance structures, ecological knowledge, and ritual practices are progressively dismantled. This produces not only physical dislocation, but also the erosion of social capital, customary institutions, and culturally embedded environmental stewardship. This paper argues that such spatial ruptures cannot be adequately addressed through technical design adjustments alone. Rather, they demand a fundamental rethinking of what constitutes valid knowledge in urban design, who is authorized to produce it, and how it is operationalized within planning systems. In this regard, Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have recently emerged as influential platforms for experimentation, co-creation, and innovation in urban contexts (Bulkeley et al., 2016 ; Rizzo et al., 2021 ). However, existing ULL scholarship predominantly conceptualizes living labs as policy instruments, innovation sandboxes, or technology-driven pilot spaces—often situated within Western metropolitan contexts and oriented toward smart-city agendas. The potential of ULLs to function as epistemological infrastructures that legitimize marginalized forms of knowledge remains under-theorized. Building on recent calls to reconceptualize ULLs as “transformative arenas” rather than mere testing environments (Charalambous, 2024), this study advances a theoretical reframing of ULLs within urban design research. It proposes that ULLs can operate as epistemological infrastructures—sites where culturally embedded, non-codified, and oral forms of knowledge are translated into empirical spatial data with normative power. In such settings, indigenous communities are not positioned as stakeholders to be consulted, but as co-researchers who actively generate, validate, and govern spatial knowledge. This reframing directly challenges the hegemony of technocratic, top-down planning epistemologies and aligns with broader post-positivist and decolonial debates in urban design theory. The empirical context for this epistemological intervention is the Mang But settlement in Quang Ngai Province, Vietnam—a mountainous indigenous village inhabited by the Xo Dang people. Traditionally, Xo Dang settlements are organized through a heterarchical (Gumlao-style) governance structure characterized by republican egalitarianism, collective land ownership, and reconciliatory justice administered by a council of village elders (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 ). Spatially, this governance logic is materialized through a centripetal settlement morphology structured around two sacred coordinates: the communal Rong house as the political and cultural nucleus, and the sacred water trough (bến nước) as the inviolable ecological source. Together, these elements form an integrated socio-ecological system regulated not by written law, but by customary practices, ritual obligations, and collective consensus. Recent modernization projects, however, have violently intervened in this indigenous spatial system. Grid-iron layouts, concrete housing typologies, and linear infrastructure corridors have displaced the Rong house to peripheral locations and intruded upon sacred ecological zones. These interventions exemplify how modern planning frameworks, when applied without epistemological adaptation, function as instruments of spatial domination rather than integration. Mang But therefore presents a critical case through which to examine how alternative planning epistemologies might be constructed and institutionalized. This research transforms Mang But into an Urban Living Lab grounded in the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation, which explicitly recognizes civil society and the natural environment as active agents in knowledge production (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010 ; Baccarne et al., 2016 ). Within this framework, intangible cultural heritage—such as customary laws, ritual spatial boundaries, and indigenous ecological practices—is systematically codified into Geographic Information System (GIS) parameters through sustained co-design and iterative validation. Rather than functioning as static representations, these cultural-spatial datasets operate as adaptive constraints: whenever proposed modern infrastructure threatens to intersect or violate an indigenous spatial parameter, a socio-spatial conflict is triggered and resolved through community veto and recalibration. The paper pursues two interrelated objectives. First, it seeks to decode the spatial morphology of Xo Dang highland settlements through the lens of indigenous epistemologies, demonstrating how social organization, ritual practice, and ecological knowledge collectively shape urban form. Second, it proposes a co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework that operationalizes intangible cultural heritage as an official empirical planning layer. By doing so, the study contributes a new epistemology to urban design—one in which adaptability emerges not from algorithmic intelligence or smart technologies, but from culturally embedded socio-spatial feedback loops governed through collective consensus. By theorizing Urban Living Labs as epistemological infrastructures and demonstrating their application within a marginalized indigenous context, this research extends urban design discourse beyond dominant Western paradigms. It offers compelling evidence that community-led, culturally grounded planning practices can generate spatial frameworks that are more resilient, inclusive, and socio-ecologically sustainable. In doing so, the paper positions indigenous knowledge not as a heritage to be preserved on the margins of development, but as a legitimate and powerful driver of contemporary urban design practice. Theoretical Contribution This paper contributes to urban design theory by advancing a new epistemological framework for understanding how spatial knowledge is produced, validated, and governed within planning practice. Moving beyond dominant technocratic and positivist paradigms, the study conceptualizes Urban Living Labs (ULLs) not merely as experimental platforms or innovation sandboxes, but as epistemological infrastructures—institutionalized arenas where competing knowledge systems are negotiated and where marginalized, non-codified forms of knowledge can acquire normative spatial authority. First, the paper reframes adaptivity in urban design. Rather than associating adaptability with algorithmic intelligence, real-time computation, or smart technologies, this research demonstrates that adaptive capacity can emerge from culturally embedded socio-spatial feedback loops. In the Mang But case, adaptivity is produced through the continuous interaction between indigenous customary laws, ritual practices, and spatial decision-making, operationalized via community-led veto power and iterative recalibration. This challenges prevailing assumptions in urban design literature that equate adaptability primarily with technological responsiveness, proposing instead a socially governed and epistemologically plural conception of adaptive planning. Second, the study advances theory by formalizing a mechanism for epistemological translation in urban design. It shows how intangible cultural heritage—often treated as supplementary, symbolic, or resistant to formalization—can be systematically translated into empirical spatial parameters without reducing culture to static representations. By encoding indigenous norms into rule-based GIS constraints that remain negotiable through collective governance, the research positions cultural knowledge not as an object of preservation, but as an active and authoritative planning instrument. This contribution extends post-positivist debates by demonstrating how qualitative, oral, and ritual knowledge can coexist with quantitative spatial modeling without collapsing into technocratic reductionism. Third, the paper contributes to debates on power, legitimacy, and knowledge production in urban design. By repositioning indigenous communities as co-researchers rather than stakeholders, the Urban Living Lab becomes a site where epistemic authority is redistributed. Spatial legitimacy is no longer derived solely from state mandates or expert-driven standards, but from iterative co-validation embedded within heterarchical governance structures. This challenges hegemonic planning epistemologies and offers a theoretically grounded alternative that aligns with decolonial and Southern urbanism perspectives. Finally, by theorizing ULLs as transformative arenas of epistemological negotiation within a marginalized highland context, the paper expands the geographical and conceptual boundaries of urban design theory. It demonstrates that indigenous settlements are not peripheral to contemporary urban discourse, but critical sites for rethinking foundational assumptions about knowledge, governance, and spatial order. In doing so, the study contributes a transferable theoretical lens for future research on participatory, culturally grounded, and socio-ecologically resilient urban design practices. Literature Review Urbanization and spatial ruptures in the highlands Urbanization and the expansion of modern infrastructure pose immense challenges to socio-ecological systems globally, demanding integrated innovative solutions to cope with pressures on natural resources and rising social inequalities (Chen et al., 2023 ; Yu et al., 2024 ). In the highlands of Vietnam, particularly the Central Highlands, indigenous ethnic minority communities are facing unprecedented transformations due to the shift from autonomous community paradigms to modern management institutions (Tran, 2016 ). The application of modern, normative, top-down planning epistemologies often overlooks indigenous cultural practices, creating "spatial ruptures" that sever the organic connection between the physical environment, architecture, and the lived spaces of indigenous peoples. Typically, the imposition of grid-iron planning models in resettlement projects has disrupted the organic spatial morphology of the highlands, severely weakening social capital networks and rendering communities highly vulnerable. Spatial morphology and the heterarchical social structure of the Xo Dang people Regarding social organization, the Xo Dang people possess a heterarchical governance structure characteristic of the Gumlao community type in Southeast Asia, distinguished by republican egalitarianism, an absence of coercive power, and conflict resolution through reconciliatory justice administered by the council of village elders (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 ). Through the lens of settlement morphology, the traditional space of the Xo Dang is organized according to a strict socio-spatial order, shaped by two core coordinates: the central nucleus is the Rong house space (where power converges and decision-making occurs) and the inviolable ecological source is the sacred water trough (Nguyen, 2017 ; Le, 2017 ). This entire spatial ecosystem reflects an organic planning model, where the built environment is regulated by ritual practices and indigenous social conventions, fostering a profoundly resilient community cohesion. Urban Living Labs (ULLs) and the Quintuple Helix Model To address these intertwined socio-spatial challenges, Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have emerged as flagship innovation platforms that bring together local authorities, academia, businesses, and civil society to co-create practical solutions in real-life settings (Bulkeley et al., 2016 ; Laborgne et al., 2021 ). Contemporary urban design scholarship calls for a reconceptualization of ULLs: they should not be seen merely as policy tools or testing grounds, but approached as "transformative sites" capable of fostering new epistemologies and reshaping urban futures (Charalambous, 2024; Rizzo et al., 2021 ). This transformative capacity is particularly potent when integrating ULLs with the Quintuple Helix innovation model (Baccarne et al., 2016 ; Almeida & Deutsch, 2025 ). Unlike traditional linear models, the Quintuple Helix not only emphasizes the inclusive participation of civil society but also elevates the Natural Environment to the status of an active agent shaping innovation trajectories, ensuring that development is inherently tied to ecological responsibility (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010 ). Within this framework, the co-design method plays a core role in breaking down top-down barriers and empowering citizens to actively participate in shaping sustainable solutions (Ebbesson et al., 2024 ). Research Gap Although ULLs are widely recognized as powerful catalysts for urban ecological innovation, current studies predominantly focus on Western cities or smart-city projects centered around digital technologies. Applying the ULL model to decode intangible cultural heritage and validate indigenous knowledge as an empirical planning data layer in mountainous settlements remains a significant academic gap. Bridging this gap will introduce a new epistemology for urban design, demonstrating that community-led spatial practices have the capacity to effectively resolve socio-ecological ruptures in the highlands. Methodology Study Area: Spatial Morphology and Planning Ruptures The research is conducted in the Mang But settlement (Quang Ngai province), a highly representative residential space of the Xo Dang ethnic minority in the Northern Central Highlands of Vietnam. From the perspective of settlement morphology, the traditional spatial structure in Mang But is not zoned based on pure topographical contours or rigid administrative boundaries; rather, it is organized according to a strict socio-spatial order where the village (plây) serves as the fundamental and independent social unit. At the core of this centripetal structure is the communal house (Rong house)—a multifunctional institution that acts both as a public space for governance decisions and an architectural symbol of the settlement's strength and identity. Residential stilt houses are arranged around this nucleus, with their orientations strictly adhering to eco-spiritual markers: main doors typically face the inviolable ecological source of the sacred water trough (bến nước) or the sunrise (Nguyen, 2017 ; Le, 2017 ). This spatial ecosystem reflects an organic planning model regulated by indigenous rituals and the reconciliatory justice of the village elders (can plây), fostering profoundly resilient community cohesion based on the principles of shared residency, mutual benefits, and common destiny (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 ). However, under the pressure of modernization and expansive urbanization, the spatial morphology in Mang But is experiencing severe ruptures due to collisions with imposed, top-down modern planning epistemologies. Recent resettlement and infrastructure development projects have violently intervened in the indigenous settlement morphology. The imposition of the "grid-iron" layout—typical of lowland urban areas—combined with the provision of concrete houses with tin roofs, has severed the organic connection between residential architecture, local climate conditions, and indigenous culture. A critical consequence of this linear planning is the spatial dislocation of the Rong house, which is now often pushed to the periphery of the village or relocated into school yards due to a lack of land (Nguyen, 2017 ; Le, 2017 ). This physical disruption fractures communal living spaces, severely weakening social capital networks and pushing the community into a state of vulnerability. The profound contradiction between modern normative planning and indigenous spatial practices makes Mang But an ideal testing ground for an Urban Living Lab (ULL). Applying the ULL model here aims to transform intangible cultural heritage—such as customary laws, spatial division rituals, and indigenous knowledge—into an official empirical planning data layer. Through this, the research seeks to co-create an adaptive spatial framework, allowing modern infrastructure development to symbiotically coexist with the unique socio-spatial structure of the highlands. The Living Lab Approach: Spatial Transformation and Co-creation Empowerment To break down the barriers of top-down planning epistemologies that often impose rigid technical boundaries, this study establishes a specialized adaptive planning framework by transforming the Mang But settlement into an Urban Living Lab (ULL). This process is grounded in the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation (Baccarne et al., 2016 ; Almeida & Deutsch, 2025 ), which emphasizes the inseparable roles of civil society (the indigenous community) and the natural environment in the production of spatial knowledge. Within this model, the natural environment is not merely a passive recipient of human intervention but an active agent shaping spatial innovation trajectories (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010 ). [insert Fig. 1 here] The crux of transforming Mang But into a "living lab" lies in a fundamental methodological shift: transitioning local residents from passive "researched subjects" to active "co-researchers" in the planning process. This shift is highly compatible with the traditional social structure of the Xo Dang people. The Xo Dang society is characterized by a Gumlao-style heterarchical governance structure, distinguished by republican egalitarianism, an absence of coercive power, and democratic consensus in village decision-making (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 ). Furthermore, their profound community cohesion—rooted in shared residency, mutual benefits, and a common destiny—creates an ideal ecosystem for inclusive, sustained co-design activities (Ebbesson et al., 2024 ). Operating as "co-researchers," the Xo Dang people directly participate in producing and validating spatial data. However, rather than requiring residents to produce physical sketches (a method both impractical and forced within an oral culture), the ULL in Mang But employs a specialized spatial data collection toolkit comprising three integrated steps: First, GPS-assisted Transect Walks: Local residents and the council of village elders act as "guides and navigators". They directly lead experts on field surveys to pinpoint core sacred coordinates. GPS data is extracted to delineate the protective radius of the Rong House—the centripetal architectural nucleus of the village—and the absolute inviolable boundaries of the sacred water trough, the community's symbol of survival and the site of annual water rituals. [insert Fig. 2 here] Second, Translating Oral Customary Laws into Spatial Logic: Researchers decode indigenous social conventions into urban design parameters. For instance, the customary law dictating that stilt house main doors must face a large stream or the sunrise, or the establishment of water-powered bamboo clacker (đàn mõ) systems along streams to protect crops, are digitized into building orientation codes and green infrastructure boundaries. [insert Table 1 here] Table 1 Translation Matrix: From Intangible Heritage to Empirical Urban Design Parameters. Intangible Heritage / Customary Law Indigenous Spatial Logic Urban Planning / Design Parameters Water Trough Ritual & Door Orientation : Stilt house doors must face the sacred stream or the sunrise. Sacred Water Source : The Bến nước (water source) is an absolute, inviolable space vital for survival. Water Protection Zone & Orientation : Establishment of groundwater protection zones and strict building orientation codes facing ecological corridors. Non-Hierarchical Governance : Gumlao-style social structure led by Village Elders with a focus on equality and communal consensus. Community Convergence Core : The Rong House acts as the nuclear focal point for all communal gatherings and decision-making. Radial Public Space : Design of multi-directional, inclusive public spaces that radiate outward from a central community anchor. Farm Protection Customs : Setting up water-powered bamboo clacker ( đàn mõ ) systems along streams to guard terraced fields and swidden farms. Communal Ownership : Land and ecological boundaries are managed collectively rather than individually owned. Green Infrastructure & Non-Grid-Iron Layout : Mapping green infrastructure boundaries; avoiding conventional private subdivision grids to preserve shared agricultural networks. Third, Base-map Elicitation and Co-validation through Iterative Loops: The collected data is translated by the expert team into 2D/3D digital maps. During iterative co-design workshops, base-maps are printed for the community to evaluate, critique, and calibrate. The community's "veto" or consensus regarding spatial arrangements directly on the map serves as empirical evidence of a deeply participatory planning governance model. [insert Table 2 here] Table 2 Socio-Ecological Iteration Data (Demographics & Feedback) in the ULL process. Workshop Iteration Participants (Demographics) Experts' Initial Proposal Community Feedback (Consensus/Veto) Map Calibration Results (Co-validation) Round 1 : Basic infrastructure structure assessment Total : 45 participants (25 Male, 20 Female). Details : 3 Village elders, 15 Youths, 25 Middle-aged villagers, 2 Local planning officials. Propose a new transport route bisecting the natural stream area to optimize travel distance. Veto : Constructing a road across the stream violates the strict protection boundary of the sacred water trough. Calibration : Relocate the entire route outside the ecological buffer zone; preserve the core space of the sacred water trough. Round 2 : Residential space and centripetal architecture review Total : 52 participants (28 Male, 24 Female). Details : 4 Village elders, 20 Youths, 25 Villagers, 3 Local officials. Plan the expanded settlement following a grid-iron layout for easy subdivision and land registration. Veto : The rigid grid-iron subdivision disrupts communal living structures and misaligns the traditional stilt house main doors (which must face the stream/sunrise). Calibration : Cancel the grid-iron subdivision model; apply a multi-directional spatial design, establishing the Rong house as the radial center. Round 3 : Finalizing agricultural boundaries Total : 48 participants (22 Male, 26 Female). Details : 3 Village elders, 18 Youths, 25 Villagers, 2 Local officials. Zone the agricultural farming area entirely separate from the natural forest buffer zone. Partial consensus & Addition : Propose expanding the green infrastructure boundary to integrate the water-powered bamboo clacker ( đàn mõ ) system protecting the swidden farms. Calibration : Update the green infrastructure boundary to encompass the network of traditional agricultural tools. Through iterative interactions within the ULL framework, the intangible heritage in Mang But is no longer confined to purely cultural concepts. They are co-produced and extracted into Cultural-Spatial Datasets that are directly integrated into the GIS system. By empowering residents to take ownership of the data collection and coding process, the Living Lab model generates a bottom-up planning mechanism, providing practical evidence for a new design epistemology where community-led spatial knowledge becomes the core driver shaping the sustainability of highland settlements. Data Collection and Co-design Instead of applying top-down prescriptive design standards, this research relies on sustained co-design as a core methodology to engage diverse stakeholders in shaping sustainable urban solutions (Ebbesson et al., 2024 ). The data collection is not a unidirectional, "extractive" effort by the expert team, but rather a co-creative process. Within the ULL framework in Mang But, local residents actively participate as "co-researchers". Given the oral culture and organic spatial mindset of the Xo Dang people, the data collection process eschews conventional quantitative questionnaires or paper sketches, employing instead three integrated fieldwork steps. First, the research team established integrated fieldwork groups comprising urban planners, local government officials, and village elders (can plây). The "co-researcher" role of the residents was actualized as they directly navigated and pinpointed the spatial survival boundaries of the settlement based on indigenous epistemologies. Using GPS devices, the research team digitized the coordinates of two critical spatial cores: the socio-architectural nucleus of the Rong house (recording its sphere of influence radiating toward the surrounding residential clusters) and the ecological buffer zones of the sacred water trough (bến nước) alongside the protective networks of water-powered bamboo clackers (đàn mõ). The residents' pride in defining these boundaries reflects profound community cohesion rooted in the communal ownership of land, forests, and water sources. Second, the research focused on collecting intangible data through in-depth interviews and decoding the "customary laws" of the village elders. Traditional Xo Dang society is characterized by a Gumlao-style heterarchical governance structure—a system devoid of coercive power, where spatial and land conflicts are resolved through reconciliatory justice witnessed by deities and the community (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 ). From these interviews, the planning experts translated these customary laws into spatial logic. For instance, the customary law dictating that stilt house main doors must face the large stream or the sunrise, and that the Rong house must be located at the main gate to control village access, were decoded into organic planning parameters governing building orientation, centripetal layouts, and microclimate management. Finally, data from the first two steps were compiled by the expert team into base-maps and 2D/3D spatial models, leading to iterative co-design workshops held directly at the Rong house. The multi-stakeholder participation formed a governance model perfectly aligned with the Quintuple Helix theory (Baccarne et al., 2016 ; Carayannis & Campbell, 2010 ). Here, residents performed "co-validation" on the experts' blueprints. When a new infrastructure design was projected, residents evaluated it through the lens of their cultural space. Any proposal threatening to bisect the sacred water trough or marginalize the Rong house was vetoed by the community and required immediate adjustment. This iterative process generated a massive set of feedback data, ensuring that the final planning framework represents a profound consensus between modern technical advancement and indigenous spatial epistemologies. [insert Table 3 here] Table 3 Demographics and Stakeholder Representation in Co-design Workshops. Participant Group Quantity Data Provision Role & Function in ULL Village elders / Village council ( Can plây ) 3 Core orientation role : Provide data on sacred spatial boundaries (locations of the Rong house, sacred water trough, and traditional house orientation). Decode customary laws and social conventions into spatial parameters, and make the final decisions in protecting the cultural core. Xo Dang women 25 Micro-level & daily life data provision : Contribute indigenous knowledge regarding daily livelihood routes (paths to the stream for water, foraging areas, and swidden farms). Ensure the internal transport network is organically connected to practical domestic and livelihood activities. Xo Dang youths 20 Field data & innovation dynamics provision : Provide feedback on the accessibility of new infrastructure and future spatial expansion needs. Assist the expert team in physically demanding fieldwork activities. Urban planning experts 4 Coordination & digitization role : Translate indigenous knowledge (from steps 1 & 2) into GIS data and 2D/3D digital maps. Present design proposals for community critique, while integrating modern technical standards into the design. Local government officials 4 Institutional support role : Listen to feedback from the community and experts to guide policy. Ensure that bottom-up planning solutions are compatible with and legitimized within the existing legal framework. Data Analysis: Integrating Indigenous Epistemologies into Spatial Modeling Clarification of the Analytical Modeling Scope It is essential to clarify the technical scope of the "adaptive spatial modeling" discussed in this study. This framework functions as a rule-based conceptual model empirically operationalized through GIS, rather than an autonomous computational algorithm or a real-time digital twin. The "adaptive" nature of the system is driven not by artificial intelligence, but by a structured socio-spatial feedback loop. Technically, the model operates on deterministic GIS topological rules (Point, Vector, and Polygon constraints) derived from intangible heritage. The fundamental evaluation criterion (the trigger for spatial adjustment) is intersection analysis: whenever a proposed modern infrastructure layer spatially intersects or violates an indigenous constraint layer (e.g., crossing a "no-build" ecological polygon), a spatial conflict alert is triggered. This triggers the community's empirical veto power during co-design workshops, mandating a manual recalibration of the spatial trajectory until it complies with both modern engineering standards and indigenous parameters. The data analysis process within the Mang But ULL marks an ontological shift in planning scholarship. Rather than treating intangible cultural heritage as a mere decorative element or a sociological appendix, this research establishes a methodology to parameterize and validate ritual practices and social conventions into an "official empirical data layer". This analytical phase is structured around the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and adaptive system modeling, viewed through the lens of the Quintuple Helix Model, where the Natural Environment actively shapes urban innovation trajectories (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010 ; Almeida & Deutsch, 2025 ). Initially, to codify intangible heritage into spatial data, the research team moves beyond traditional modern planning base-maps—which typically rely only on physical layers such as topography, hydrology, and cadastral boundaries. Instead, cultural data gathered from the co-design process is overlaid into the GIS spatial analysis system. The customary laws and ritual practices of the Xo Dang people are coded into specific morphological parameters within the digital space. For instance, the coordinates of the Rong house—the nucleus for the village council's decision-making and sacred rituals—are established as the central point data (hub) for radial spatial network analysis, effectively rejecting the decentralized grid-iron structure. Furthermore, the traditional custom dictating that stilt house main doors must face the large stream or the sunrise is translated into vector data for building orientation and viewshed analysis. Simultaneously, the boundaries of the sacred water trough (bến nước) and the crop-protecting bamboo clacker (đàn mõ) system are digitized as polygon data, functioning as strict no-build zones or ecological buffer zones. Because Xo Dang society operates communally, with land and forests collectively owned, the GIS system maps Mang But using "commons spatial mapping" rather than applying rigid, privatized cadastral subdivisions. Subsequently, after integrating these cultural and physical data layers into GIS, the research employs rule-based GIS spatial queries to test various spatial scenarios. Moving away from static blueprints, this adaptive system analyzes spatio-temporal dynamics by incorporating the agricultural farming calendar and the Xo Dang's ning nong festival cycle into the model to calculate spatial resilience. GIS-based 2D/3D simulations are utilized to simulate whether a proposed infrastructure route might sever the ecological flow of the sacred water trough or isolate the Rong house from the residential cluster. Any scenario threatening to rupture the Gumlao-style social structure—characterized by non-coercive, reconciliatory heterarchy (Tran, 2016 ; Le, 2017 )— triggers a spatial conflict alert, prompting immediate trajectory adjustments. By treating intangible heritage as indispensable input data for simulation models, this analytical approach grants indigenous culture an "ecological power" equal to hard infrastructure standards. Ultimately, this leads to the emergence of an adaptive spatial governance mechanism, where technological advancement and urban design operate in harmony with the ecological knowledge and social order of highland communities. [insert Table 4 here] Table 4 GIS Coding Matrix: Epistemological Translation of Xo Dang Cultural Norms. Intangible Heritage / Cultural Practices GIS Data Classification Planning & Design Constraints Rong house nuclear space : The venue for the village council's decision-making and sacred rituals. Point Data : Establishing the central hub for the radial spatial network analysis algorithm. Radial planning : Calculating the living radius radiating from the core; completely rejecting the decentralized grid-iron subdivision structure. Custom of stilt house door orientation : Main doors must face directly toward the large stream (sacred water trough) or the sunrise. Vector Data : Analyzing movement flows, building orientation vectors, and viewshed analysis. Adherence to the spiritual axis : Orienting structures closely along the sacred spatial axis; designing expanded spaces to face East or the stream. Sanctity of the sacred water trough & water-powered bamboo clacker ( đàn mõ ) system : Inviolable symbols of survival and traditional tools for protecting swidden farms. Polygon Data : Digitized into spatial polygon layers, functioning as indigenous green infrastructure. Strict ecological protection : Establishing No-build zones and natural ecological buffer zones; absolutely prohibiting land filling and encroachment. Communal ownership regime : Land, mountains, streams, and headwater forests are collectively managed and owned by the entire village community. Topology : Commons spatial mapping with flexible (soft) boundaries. Non-privatization of space : Maintaining the continuity of the ecological and farming networks; not applying rigid privatized cadastral subdivisions. Findings Decoding Spatial Heritage: Sacred Coordinates and Radial Hubs The spatial analysis results derived from GPS-assisted transect walks have re-established the authentic settlement morphology of the Xo Dang people, a structure completely absent from modern cadastral maps. Through the Urban Living Lab (ULL) process, the research successfully co-produced and validated two "sacred coordinates" as the central cores shaping the entire spatial planning layout. The first core is the governance and cultural nucleus, embodied by the centripetal structure of the Rong house (also known locally as giông, cượt, or mnao). Instead of being pushed to the village periphery due to land shortages in modern planning projects, the Rong house is repositioned on the GIS map as the absolute community hub. Empirical data confirms that the Rong house is traditionally located near the main village gate to control access. Furthermore, it serves as the convergence of communal strength, the venue for the village council's decision-making, and the site for traditional festivals. From this nuclear coordinate, the ULL established a multi-directional radial public space network, which deeply reflects the democratic and republican egalitarian nature of the traditional Xo Dang society. The second core is the inviolable ecological nucleus, represented by the sacred water trough (bến nước). The co-design results indicate that the Xo Dang's selection of settlement land depends absolutely on a high-quality water source. Thus, the water trough is not merely water supply infrastructure but a sacred symbol of survival, hosting the annual water ritual. On the co-produced planning map, the water trough area and its surrounding vegetation are codified into a "Strict Ecological No-build Zone". This categorization creates a rigid spatial boundary that effectively neutralizes any attempts at concrete infrastructure interventions, safeguarding the ecological integrity of the settlement. [insert Fig. 3 here] Social Norms in Bounding Spatial Configurations One of the breakthrough findings of the ULL model, viewed through the Quintuple Helix lens, is demonstrating how customary laws and non-hierarchical (heterarchy/Gumlao) social relations proactively establish planning boundaries. Data collected from the co-design workshops systematically dismantled the "street-facing" mindset typical of lowland urban planning. Xo Dang residential architecture adheres to a strict spatial logic: the main door must be located at the midpoint of the front wall and must directly face the large stream (where the sacred water trough is located) or the sunrise. This belief logic was translated by the GIS system into building orientation vectors and viewshed vectors, fundamentally shaping the overall spatial layout of the settlement. Regarding green infrastructure, participatory mapping revealed that the protective boundaries of farming areas are established not by barbed wire, but by "indigenous ecological infrastructure". Specifically, the traditional bamboo clacker system (comprising stone pendulums, bamboo clackers, and water-powered seesaws) placed along streams to ward off wild animals was digitized into an acoustic and ecological buffer zone. Furthermore, because Xo Dang society is inherently communal—where land, mountains, and streams are collectively owned—the ULL model completely eliminated rigid privatized cadastral subdivision lines. Instead, it applied a "commons" spatial ownership mechanism. In this system, flexible boundaries are managed and reconciled by the village council through sacred pacts (such as the klei bi kuôl brass ring ritual) rather than empirical law, generating a highly resilient spatial structure against natural fluctuations. The Co-produced Adaptive Spatial Framework The ultimate synthesis of the Mang But ULL is the creation of the Co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework. This framework represents a new epistemology in urban design, wherein the socio-ecological knowledge of indigenous people serves as the core guiding principle. This framework transcends the conventional concept of a static blueprint to operate as a spatio-temporal dynamics simulation system. For instance, it integrates the agricultural farming calendar and the ning nong festival cycle (a designated time for rest, ecological recovery, and community bonding) into the spatial management system. Consequently, any new infrastructure intervention (such as road construction or power grid expansion) must pass through the filter of this framework to ensure it does not sever the vital ecological flow connecting the sacred water trough to the Rong house, while simultaneously protecting the sacred spaces of the village. By validating intangible heritage as quantitative GIS data layers—such as the Rong house living radius, spiritual viewsheds, and ecological buffer zones—the ULL in Mang But provides compelling evidence that culture is not merely an ethnographic object to be passively preserved in museums. Instead, these cultural elements can be operationalized as normative planning parameters. This bottom-up planning mechanism ensures that the advancement of modern infrastructure organically harmonizes with the unique socio-ecological system of the highlands. [insert Table 5 here] Table 5 The Co-produced Adaptive Planning Framework: Integrating Xo Dang Epistemologies into Urban Design. Urban Design Layer Normative Modern Planning ULL Adaptive Framework Civic Hub Pushed to the periphery Centripetal structure at the Rong house Green Infrastructure Concretization of water sources Protection zone for the sacred water trough and water-powered bamboo clacker system Housing Network Street-facing grid-iron subdivision House orientation facing the stream or sunrise Governance Structure Top-down cadastral management Communal space and heterarchical governance Discussion Debate Positioning This paper positions itself at the center of an ongoing debate in urban design and planning scholarship concerning the epistemological foundations of participatory and adaptive planning. While Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are increasingly promoted as instruments for experimentation and governance innovation, dominant strands of the literature continue to conceptualize them primarily as technocratic platforms for policy testing, smart-city deployment, or socio-technical transition management. Such approaches, although valuable, often leave intact the underlying epistemic hierarchy in which expert knowledge retains ultimate authority, and local or indigenous knowledge is incorporated merely as contextual input or stakeholder feedback. By contrast, this study explicitly challenges these assumptions by theorizing ULLs as epistemological infrastructures—arenas where the very criteria of what counts as valid planning knowledge are renegotiated and reconstituted through co-production. By empirically demonstrating how intangible indigenous epistemologies can be translated into authoritative GIS-based planning parameters without being reduced to static cultural artifacts, the paper intervenes in broader debates on adaptivity, power, and legitimacy in urban design. It departs from prevailing interpretations of adaptive planning that equate adaptability with algorithmic intelligence, real-time data, or digital automation, and instead advances a socially governed model of adaptivity rooted in collective consensus, ritual practice, and heterarchical governance. In doing so, the study contests the epistemic dominance of normative, grid-based, top-down planning frameworks and aligns with post-positivist, decolonial, and Southern urbanism perspectives. The Mang But Urban Living Lab thus exemplifies how indigenous communities can move beyond the role of consulted stakeholders to become epistemic agents who co-produce, validate, and govern spatial knowledge—thereby reframing ULLs not as neutral laboratories, but as transformative arenas of epistemological contestation and spatial justice. To fully conceptualize this shift, it is necessary to clarify the nature of epistemology in urban planning. In planning theory, epistemology refers to the foundational assumptions regarding what constitutes valid knowledge, who is authorized to produce it, and how that knowledge acquires legitimacy. Historically, normative, top-down planning relies on positivist and technocratic epistemologies, wherein only objective, quantifiable metrics—such as rigid cadastral grids and top-down engineering standards—are recognized as valid evidence. This study explicitly challenges that paradigm. First, regarding what knowledge counts, the proposed framework validates intangible cultural heritage, ritual practices, and indigenous customary laws as official, empirical spatial data layers. Second, concerning who produces knowledge, the ULL framework dismantles the monopoly of external state planners by empowering the marginalized Xo Dang people as active "co-researchers". This transitions them from passive subjects of study to primary knowledge generators. Finally, in terms of how knowledge gains legitimacy, validity is no longer derived from administrative mandates. Instead, legitimacy is established through iterative, bottom-up co-validation and democratic consensus grounded in the community’s heterarchical (Gumlao) governance structure. Consequently, this framework represents a fully theorized epistemological transformation rather than merely an applied spatial innovation. Critical reflection on ULL governance While the Mang But ULL demonstrates significant emancipatory potential, it is crucial not to romanticize it as an idealized, conflict-free participatory space. In reality, ULL governance involves continuous negotiations of power, revealing inherent tensions between different knowledge systems. A critical question arises regarding who ultimately controls the ULL agenda and whether the state retains veto power. Within this framework, local government officials participated primarily to provide "institutional support," ensuring that bottom-up spatial solutions could be legitimized within the rigid existing legal framework. However, this dynamic often led to friction, as state policymakers typically prioritize short-term economic efficiency and standardized administrative management, which fundamentally diverges from the indigenous community's focus on ecological sanctity and spatial resilience. Consequently, the ULL was punctuated by moments of acute disagreement rather than immediate consensus. Empirical data from the iterative co-design workshops reveals direct conflicts when modern planning logic was introduced. For instance, the community actively exercised a "bottom-up veto" against initial state-aligned technical proposals, specifically rejecting the construction of a new transport route that bisected the sacred water trough, and firmly opposing the grid-iron layout for residential expansion. Ultimately, while the local government retains the statutory authority to approve the final master plan, the ULL functioned as a necessary agonistic arena. It provided a structured space where the marginalized Xo Dang people could effectively negotiate, leverage their cultural epistemology, and force structural adjustments against top-down mandates. The Role of the Living Lab in Fostering New Epistemologies The catalytic role of the ULL in fostering a new planning epistemology is most evident through the perfect resonance between the co-design method and the traditional heterarchical social structure of the Xo Dang people. As documented, Xo Dang society is characterized by the Gumlao community type, distinguished by republican egalitarianism and an absence of coercive power or a despotic state. In this space, spatial conflicts are not resolved by administrative mandates but by reconciliatory justice through the role of the village council at the Rong house. The ULL model absorbed this non-coercive governance principle and transformed it into a new design epistemology. By empowering residents as "co-researchers", the ULL comprehensively resolved the governance ruptures caused by modern resettlement projects (e.g., the grid-iron layout pushing the Rong house to the periphery). Furthermore, applying the Quintuple Helix model elevated the Natural Environment to an active agent in planning. Through the ULL, sensitive ecological zones vulnerable to infrastructure planning were protected by the community's belief shield, exemplified by the strict zoning of the sacred water trough—the inviolable symbol of the village's survival. Methodological Considerations and Limitations Although the ULL provides an advantageous approach, applying this model in highland ethnic minority settlements presents methodological limitations that must be objectively acknowledged. First, the process of "translating" flexible oral customary laws into rigid GIS parameters carries the risk of oversimplifying complex cultural nuances. Second, the ULL model requires sustained multi-stakeholder consensus, yet there is often a divergence of goals between policymakers (who prioritize short-term economic efficiency) and indigenous communities (who prioritize sanctity and ecological sustainability). Third, generational rupture driven by the market economy and urbanization poses a significant barrier. Current Xo Dang youth tend to neglect traditional values, showing less interest in preserving gongs or the Rong house space, making it challenging to ensure equitable cross-generational participation in co-design workshops. Finally, sustaining a ULL frequently encounters significant barriers regarding the continuity of funding, often resulting in solutions that remain short-term pilot projects rather than taking long-term root. While the heterarchical structure of the Xo Dang society promotes egalitarianism, it is critical to avoid the "romanticisation of elders" by equating the village council's voice with the entire community's consensus. Relying solely on the can plây (village elders) carries the inherent risk of "elite capture" within the participatory process, potentially subjecting marginalized groups, particularly women and youth, to "symbolic silence." To mitigate these internal power asymmetries, the Mang But ULL methodology deliberately employed multi-round iterative workshops with carefully balanced demographics. Rather than treating the community as a monolith, specific spatial knowledge roles were distributed. While the elders defined macro-level sacred boundaries, 25 Xo Dang women were empowered to co-produce micro-level spatial data. They mapped daily livelihood routes—such as paths to the sacred water trough and foraging areas—ensuring that the new spatial framework addressed pragmatic domestic realities. Similarly, 20 youths were actively engaged in the physically demanding GPS transect walks and provided critical feedback on future infrastructure accessibility. Although generational ruptures remain an ongoing challenge, this structured, multi-demographic engagement ensures that the community's spatial veto power represents a genuinely collective consensus rather than a top-down mandate from traditional elites. Conditions for transferability While the empirical findings in the Mang But ULL are deeply contextualized, the methodological framework offers analytical generalizability beyond this specific case. It is crucial to distinguish between what is context-specific—such as the spatial parameters of the Rong house or the bến nước sacred water trough—and what is methodologically generalizable, namely the epistemological translation of intangible heritage into empirical GIS data via sustained co-design. Regarding transferability to other marginalized or indigenous communities, this methodology is not exclusively restricted to heterarchical (Gumlao) societies. Rather, its replicability depends on specific socio-political and structural preconditions. First, if a community possesses strong socio-spatial cohesion rooted in communal practices and retains functional traditional institutions (such as recognized cultural custodians or a council of elders), then this ULL co-researcher framework is highly feasible. These elements provide the fundamental social capital necessary to sustain iterative co-validation and decode spatial logic. Conversely, if a community suffers from severe generational rupture where indigenous epistemologies are heavily degraded, or if the state apparatus imposes an absolute coercive, top-down mandate without providing an agonistic space for negotiation, then the bottom-up co-production model will inevitably collapse. The local government's willingness to provide institutional support—allowing community-led spatial vetoes to be integrated into formal statutory planning—is the decisive variable. Ultimately, the broader analytical lesson is that this adaptive planning framework is transferable to any context where local spatial knowledge can be systematically codified and politically legitimized as an empirical planning layer. Implications for Practice and Future Research From a practical perspective, this research sends a strong message to policymakers: spatial planning in ethnic minority areas cannot succeed without the participation and knowledge of indigenous communities. To scale up this co-produced adaptive planning framework to other highland settlements, local governments must integrate the ULL mechanism into official urban and rural strategic planning. Particularly, to sustain the lifecycle of ULLs, hybrid financing models should be applied, combining local public budgets with national development funds and civil society contributions. Regarding future research directions, urban design scholars can further expand this epistemological foundation by integrating advanced technologies such as Digital Twins and Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the ULL model. Utilizing digital simulations not only helps visualize cultural spatial boundaries but also accurately predicts the impacts of climate change and infrastructure development on the highland Socio-Ecological System. Through this, ULLs will continue to affirm their role as profoundly transformative arenas, where modern technology and indigenous knowledge intertwine to forge sustainable, inclusive, and humane urban futures. Conclusion This study challenges normative modern planning epistemologies by demonstrating that intangible cultural heritage is not merely a passive object of ethnographic preservation, but can serve as a normative empirical data layer in urban design. By establishing an Urban Living Lab (ULL) in the Mang But settlement, the research shifts from a top-down prescriptive planning method to a bottom-up co-creation mechanism, where the indigenous Xo Dang people act as legitimate "co-researchers". Through the lens of the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation, the ULL in Mang But highlights the indispensable roles of civil society and the natural environment in spatial production. Instead of accepting the spatial ruptures caused by the grid-iron layout—which marginalizes the Rong house and fractures community cohesion—this study codified indigenous customary laws and beliefs into Geographic Information System (GIS) parameters. Consequently, the co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework re-established a centripetal structure around the Rong house and designated strict ecological protection zones for the sacred water trough. This structure accurately reflects the Gumlao-style heterarchical governance order and the profound community cohesion of the Xo Dang people, rooted in shared residency and mutual benefits. Theoretically, this research contributes a new epistemology to urban planning scholarship, asserting that ULLs are not merely real-life test environments to de-risk infrastructure projects, but are profoundly transformative arenas. In these spaces, digital solutions and economic advancements are compelled to harmonize with indigenous ecological knowledge. Practically, the findings deliver a strategic message for sustainable development in the Central Highlands: policies on planning, resettlement, and infrastructure development will continue to damage social capital networks if traditional cultural values are ignored. To forge inclusive, safe, and resilient urban futures, policymakers must institutionalize the ULL model into official spatial strategic frameworks, ensuring that modern infrastructure development is firmly rooted in the specific Socio-Ecological System of indigenous communities. Declarations Consent Statement: All study participants, and/or their legal guardians where applicable, provided informed consent to participate in this research. In cases where consent was waived, the waiver was formally reviewed and approved by the ethics committee. Author Contribution H.H.T. conceptualized the research, designed the Urban Living Lab (ULL) methodology, and wrote the main manuscript text. L.Q.T. conducted the fieldwork in Mang But, collected empirical spatial data through GPS-assisted transect walks, and engaged with the local community. L.N.V.L. performed the GIS data analysis, translated cultural norms into spatial parameters, and prepared the maps and figures. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors express our deepest gratitude to the Xo Dang community in the Mang But settlement for their invaluable participation as co-researchers in this Urban Living Lab. Special thanks go to the village elders (can plây) for sharing their sacred spatial knowledge, as well as the local women and youth for their active engagement in the co-design workshops and field surveys. Without their profound socio-ecological wisdom and collaborative spirit, the co-production of this adaptive spatial planning framework would not have been possible. Data Availability The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the indigenous cultural data and precise spatial coordinates (e.g., the sacred water trough and the Rong house) in order to protect the privacy and intangible heritage of the Xo Dang community. However, de-identified and aggregated data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Almeida, F. and Deutsch, N. (2025) Urban living labs as catalysts for innovation: Advancing urban ecosystems within the quintuple helix model . Urban Governance 5: 133–141. Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D. and De Marez, L. (2016) Governing quintuple helix innovation: urban living labs and socio-ecological entrepreneurship . Technology Innovation Management Review 6(3): 22–30, http://timreview.ca/article/972 . Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F. and Palgan, Y.V. (2016) Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions . Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 13–17, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003 . Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and Social ecology . International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD) 1(1): 41–69, doi: 10.4018/jsesd.2010010105 . Chen, M., Huang, X., Cheng, J., Tang, Z. and Huang, G. (2023) Urbanization and vulnerable employment: empirical evidence from 163 countries in 1991–2019 . Cities 135: 104208, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104208 . Coghlan, D. (2019) Doing action research in your own organization . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Ebbesson, E., Lund, J. and Smith, R.C. (2024) Dynamics of sustained co-design in urban living labs . CoDesign 20(3): 422–439, doi: 10.1080/15710882.2024.2303115 . Laborgne, P., Ekille, E., Wendel, J., Pierce, A., Heyder, M., Suchomska, J., Nichersu, I., Balaican, D., Ślebioda, K., Wróblewski, M. and Goszczynski, W. (2021) Urban living labs: how to enable inclusive transdisciplinary research? Urban Transformations 3(11): 1–18, doi: 10.1186/s42854-021-00026-0 . Le, N.B. (2017) Social organization and community cohesion in Xo Dang epic (Tổ chức xã hội và sự cố kết cộng đồng trong sử thi Xơ Đăng). Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Đà Lạt 7(4): 447–460. Nguyen, M.H. (2017) Promoting the cultural values of the Xo Dang ethnic group in Quang Ngai today (Vấn đề phát huy giá trị văn hóa dân tộc Xơ Đăng ở Quang Ngai hiện nay). Master's thesis, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences. Rizzo, A., Habibipour, A. and Ståhlbröst, A. (2021) Transformative thinking and urban living labs in planning practice: a critical review and ongoing case studies in Europe . European Planning Studies 29(10): 1739–1757, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2021.1911955 . Scholl, C., de Kraker, J. and Dijk, M. (2022) Enhancing the contribution of urban living labs to sustainability transformations: towards a meta-lab approach. Urban Transformations 4(7): 1–13, doi: 10.1186/s42854-022-00038-4 . Stringer, E.T. and Aragón, A.O. (2020) Action research. Thousand Oaks , CA: SAGE Publications. Tran, H.Q. (2016) Social changes in Central Highlands villages: Two key dimensions (Biến đổi xã hội của buôn làng Tây Nguyên: Hai chiều kích then chốt). Tạp chí Khoa học Xã hội 2(210): 25–42. Yu, P., Wei, Y., Ma, L., Wang, B., Yung, E. and Chen, Y. (2024) Urbanization and the urban critical zone . Earth Critical Zone 1(1): 100011, doi: 10.1016/j.ecz.2024.100011 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 27 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 11 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9266656","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":615270249,"identity":"626acd4f-3e81-4539-8877-6d438e66dbc6","order_by":0,"name":"Ha Huy Thach","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Architecture Ho Chi Minh City (UAH)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ha","middleName":"Huy","lastName":"Thach","suffix":""},{"id":615270250,"identity":"c9902adf-50b3-4c6f-8e93-89329d1612a7","order_by":1,"name":"Le Quoc Thinh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Architecture Ho Chi Minh City (UAH)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Le","middleName":"Quoc","lastName":"Thinh","suffix":""},{"id":615270251,"identity":"2cf66a71-76f6-4601-9052-5b98217d5109","order_by":2,"name":"Le Nguyen Viet Lam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Architecture Ho Chi Minh City (UAH)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Le","middleName":"Nguyen Viet","lastName":"Lam","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-30 12:10:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106220846,"identity":"ea556849-7c05-4ea5-9049-09e63967d095","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-06 09:42:26","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15770364,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1TheQuintupleHelixInnovationModelappliedinMangButUrbanLivingLab.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9266656/v1/6e83be6e6ad3edd69534e722.jpg"},{"id":106220795,"identity":"e2cbe1c0-a0b4-462c-b878-ba9958677b30","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-06 09:41:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17063627,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2SpatialMorphologyDataExtractedfromGPSassistedTransectWalks.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9266656/v1/2795a87c56aaf5e396adeaf3.jpg"},{"id":106220794,"identity":"ed57c8ab-724c-48d2-8d51-9cce01f89245","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-06 09:41:59","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":16339648,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3SpatialcomparisonbetweenModernGridironlayoutvs.IndigenousRadialMorphologyinMangBut.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9266656/v1/53c0d1125e30659de8552b6d.jpg"},{"id":106402641,"identity":"575110e5-0303-47d7-a05a-b62aaab8b925","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:12:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":50687811,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9266656/v1/83e24fa2-426c-48b8-8958-a717a6c6828c.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Transformative Arenas: Spatializing Indigenous Epistemologies through an Urban Living Lab in Vietnam's Highlands","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eContemporary urbanization processes are generating profound socio-spatial disruptions worldwide, as modern infrastructure expansion continues to exert pressure on ecological systems, cultural landscapes, and social cohesion (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Urban design scholarship has repeatedly demonstrated that these pressures are not merely technical or environmental, but epistemological in nature\u0026mdash;rooted in dominant planning paradigms that privilege standardized, positivist, and top-down forms of knowledge while marginalizing context-specific socio-cultural practices. Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than in indigenous and ethnic minority settlements, where imposed normative planning models frequently produce severe \u0026ldquo;spatial ruptures\u0026rdquo; that fracture the organic relationships between settlement morphology, cultural institutions, and the natural environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s Central Highlands, indigenous ethnic minority communities are undergoing rapid spatial transformation driven by state-led urbanization, resettlement programs, and infrastructure development (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These interventions typically rely on lowland-derived planning epistemologies\u0026mdash;such as grid-iron layouts, rigid cadastral subdivision, and standardized housing typologies\u0026mdash;that are poorly aligned with highland socio-ecological realities. As a result, traditional settlement morphologies that once encoded indigenous governance structures, ecological knowledge, and ritual practices are progressively dismantled. This produces not only physical dislocation, but also the erosion of social capital, customary institutions, and culturally embedded environmental stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper argues that such spatial ruptures cannot be adequately addressed through technical design adjustments alone. Rather, they demand a fundamental rethinking of what constitutes valid knowledge in urban design, who is authorized to produce it, and how it is operationalized within planning systems. In this regard, Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have recently emerged as influential platforms for experimentation, co-creation, and innovation in urban contexts (Bulkeley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rizzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, existing ULL scholarship predominantly conceptualizes living labs as policy instruments, innovation sandboxes, or technology-driven pilot spaces\u0026mdash;often situated within Western metropolitan contexts and oriented toward smart-city agendas. The potential of ULLs to function as epistemological infrastructures that legitimize marginalized forms of knowledge remains under-theorized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on recent calls to reconceptualize ULLs as \u0026ldquo;transformative arenas\u0026rdquo; rather than mere testing environments (Charalambous, 2024), this study advances a theoretical reframing of ULLs within urban design research. It proposes that ULLs can operate as epistemological infrastructures\u0026mdash;sites where culturally embedded, non-codified, and oral forms of knowledge are translated into empirical spatial data with normative power. In such settings, indigenous communities are not positioned as stakeholders to be consulted, but as co-researchers who actively generate, validate, and govern spatial knowledge. This reframing directly challenges the hegemony of technocratic, top-down planning epistemologies and aligns with broader post-positivist and decolonial debates in urban design theory.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe empirical context for this epistemological intervention is the Mang But settlement in Quang Ngai Province, Vietnam\u0026mdash;a mountainous indigenous village inhabited by the Xo Dang people. Traditionally, Xo Dang settlements are organized through a heterarchical (Gumlao-style) governance structure characterized by republican egalitarianism, collective land ownership, and reconciliatory justice administered by a council of village elders (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Spatially, this governance logic is materialized through a centripetal settlement morphology structured around two sacred coordinates: the communal Rong house as the political and cultural nucleus, and the sacred water trough (bến nước) as the inviolable ecological source. Together, these elements form an integrated socio-ecological system regulated not by written law, but by customary practices, ritual obligations, and collective consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent modernization projects, however, have violently intervened in this indigenous spatial system. Grid-iron layouts, concrete housing typologies, and linear infrastructure corridors have displaced the Rong house to peripheral locations and intruded upon sacred ecological zones. These interventions exemplify how modern planning frameworks, when applied without epistemological adaptation, function as instruments of spatial domination rather than integration. Mang But therefore presents a critical case through which to examine how alternative planning epistemologies might be constructed and institutionalized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research transforms Mang But into an Urban Living Lab grounded in the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation, which explicitly recognizes civil society and the natural environment as active agents in knowledge production (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Baccarne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, intangible cultural heritage\u0026mdash;such as customary laws, ritual spatial boundaries, and indigenous ecological practices\u0026mdash;is systematically codified into Geographic Information System (GIS) parameters through sustained co-design and iterative validation. Rather than functioning as static representations, these cultural-spatial datasets operate as adaptive constraints: whenever proposed modern infrastructure threatens to intersect or violate an indigenous spatial parameter, a socio-spatial conflict is triggered and resolved through community veto and recalibration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe paper pursues two interrelated objectives. First, it seeks to decode the spatial morphology of Xo Dang highland settlements through the lens of indigenous epistemologies, demonstrating how social organization, ritual practice, and ecological knowledge collectively shape urban form. Second, it proposes a co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework that operationalizes intangible cultural heritage as an official empirical planning layer. By doing so, the study contributes a new epistemology to urban design\u0026mdash;one in which adaptability emerges not from algorithmic intelligence or smart technologies, but from culturally embedded socio-spatial feedback loops governed through collective consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy theorizing Urban Living Labs as epistemological infrastructures and demonstrating their application within a marginalized indigenous context, this research extends urban design discourse beyond dominant Western paradigms. It offers compelling evidence that community-led, culturally grounded planning practices can generate spatial frameworks that are more resilient, inclusive, and socio-ecologically sustainable. In doing so, the paper positions indigenous knowledge not as a heritage to be preserved on the margins of development, but as a legitimate and powerful driver of contemporary urban design practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTheoretical Contribution\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis paper contributes to urban design theory by advancing a new epistemological framework for understanding how spatial knowledge is produced, validated, and governed within planning practice. Moving beyond dominant technocratic and positivist paradigms, the study conceptualizes Urban Living Labs (ULLs) not merely as experimental platforms or innovation sandboxes, but as epistemological infrastructures\u0026mdash;institutionalized arenas where competing knowledge systems are negotiated and where marginalized, non-codified forms of knowledge can acquire normative spatial authority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the paper reframes adaptivity in urban design. Rather than associating adaptability with algorithmic intelligence, real-time computation, or smart technologies, this research demonstrates that adaptive capacity can emerge from culturally embedded socio-spatial feedback loops. In the Mang But case, adaptivity is produced through the continuous interaction between indigenous customary laws, ritual practices, and spatial decision-making, operationalized via community-led veto power and iterative recalibration. This challenges prevailing assumptions in urban design literature that equate adaptability primarily with technological responsiveness, proposing instead a socially governed and epistemologically plural conception of adaptive planning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the study advances theory by formalizing a mechanism for epistemological translation in urban design. It shows how intangible cultural heritage\u0026mdash;often treated as supplementary, symbolic, or resistant to formalization\u0026mdash;can be systematically translated into empirical spatial parameters without reducing culture to static representations. By encoding indigenous norms into rule-based GIS constraints that remain negotiable through collective governance, the research positions cultural knowledge not as an object of preservation, but as an active and authoritative planning instrument. This contribution extends post-positivist debates by demonstrating how qualitative, oral, and ritual knowledge can coexist with quantitative spatial modeling without collapsing into technocratic reductionism.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the paper contributes to debates on power, legitimacy, and knowledge production in urban design. By repositioning indigenous communities as co-researchers rather than stakeholders, the Urban Living Lab becomes a site where epistemic authority is redistributed. Spatial legitimacy is no longer derived solely from state mandates or expert-driven standards, but from iterative co-validation embedded within heterarchical governance structures. This challenges hegemonic planning epistemologies and offers a theoretically grounded alternative that aligns with decolonial and Southern urbanism perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, by theorizing ULLs as transformative arenas of epistemological negotiation within a marginalized highland context, the paper expands the geographical and conceptual boundaries of urban design theory. It demonstrates that indigenous settlements are not peripheral to contemporary urban discourse, but critical sites for rethinking foundational assumptions about knowledge, governance, and spatial order. In doing so, the study contributes a transferable theoretical lens for future research on participatory, culturally grounded, and socio-ecologically resilient urban design practices.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eUrbanization and spatial ruptures in the highlands\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrbanization and the expansion of modern infrastructure pose immense challenges to socio-ecological systems globally, demanding integrated innovative solutions to cope with pressures on natural resources and rising social inequalities (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Yu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In the highlands of Vietnam, particularly the Central Highlands, indigenous ethnic minority communities are facing unprecedented transformations due to the shift from autonomous community paradigms to modern management institutions (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The application of modern, normative, top-down planning epistemologies often overlooks indigenous cultural practices, creating \"spatial ruptures\" that sever the organic connection between the physical environment, architecture, and the lived spaces of indigenous peoples. Typically, the imposition of grid-iron planning models in resettlement projects has disrupted the organic spatial morphology of the highlands, severely weakening social capital networks and rendering communities highly vulnerable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSpatial morphology and the heterarchical social structure of the Xo Dang people\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding social organization, the Xo Dang people possess a heterarchical governance structure characteristic of the Gumlao community type in Southeast Asia, distinguished by republican egalitarianism, an absence of coercive power, and conflict resolution through reconciliatory justice administered by the council of village elders (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Through the lens of settlement morphology, the traditional space of the Xo Dang is organized according to a strict socio-spatial order, shaped by two core coordinates: the central nucleus is the Rong house space (where power converges and decision-making occurs) and the inviolable ecological source is the sacred water trough (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This entire spatial ecosystem reflects an organic planning model, where the built environment is regulated by ritual practices and indigenous social conventions, fostering a profoundly resilient community cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eUrban Living Labs (ULLs) and the Quintuple Helix Model\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address these intertwined socio-spatial challenges, Urban Living Labs (ULLs) have emerged as flagship innovation platforms that bring together local authorities, academia, businesses, and civil society to co-create practical solutions in real-life settings (Bulkeley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Laborgne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Contemporary urban design scholarship calls for a reconceptualization of ULLs: they should not be seen merely as policy tools or testing grounds, but approached as \"transformative sites\" capable of fostering new epistemologies and reshaping urban futures (Charalambous, 2024; Rizzo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis transformative capacity is particularly potent when integrating ULLs with the Quintuple Helix innovation model (Baccarne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Almeida \u0026amp; Deutsch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike traditional linear models, the Quintuple Helix not only emphasizes the inclusive participation of civil society but also elevates the Natural Environment to the status of an active agent shaping innovation trajectories, ensuring that development is inherently tied to ecological responsibility (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, the co-design method plays a core role in breaking down top-down barriers and empowering citizens to actively participate in shaping sustainable solutions (Ebbesson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eResearch Gap\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough ULLs are widely recognized as powerful catalysts for urban ecological innovation, current studies predominantly focus on Western cities or smart-city projects centered around digital technologies. Applying the ULL model to decode intangible cultural heritage and validate indigenous knowledge as an empirical planning data layer in mountainous settlements remains a significant academic gap. Bridging this gap will introduce a new epistemology for urban design, demonstrating that community-led spatial practices have the capacity to effectively resolve socio-ecological ruptures in the highlands.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":" \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy Area: Spatial Morphology and Planning Ruptures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe research is conducted in the Mang But settlement (Quang Ngai province), a highly representative residential space of the Xo Dang ethnic minority in the Northern Central Highlands of Vietnam. From the perspective of settlement morphology, the traditional spatial structure in Mang But is not zoned based on pure topographical contours or rigid administrative boundaries; rather, it is organized according to a strict socio-spatial order where the village (pl\u0026acirc;y) serves as the fundamental and independent social unit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the core of this centripetal structure is the communal house (Rong house)\u0026mdash;a multifunctional institution that acts both as a public space for governance decisions and an architectural symbol of the settlement's strength and identity. Residential stilt houses are arranged around this nucleus, with their orientations strictly adhering to eco-spiritual markers: main doors typically face the inviolable ecological source of the sacred water trough (bến nước) or the sunrise (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This spatial ecosystem reflects an organic planning model regulated by indigenous rituals and the reconciliatory justice of the village elders (can pl\u0026acirc;y), fostering profoundly resilient community cohesion based on the principles of shared residency, mutual benefits, and common destiny (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, under the pressure of modernization and expansive urbanization, the spatial morphology in Mang But is experiencing severe ruptures due to collisions with imposed, top-down modern planning epistemologies. Recent resettlement and infrastructure development projects have violently intervened in the indigenous settlement morphology. The imposition of the \"grid-iron\" layout\u0026mdash;typical of lowland urban areas\u0026mdash;combined with the provision of concrete houses with tin roofs, has severed the organic connection between residential architecture, local climate conditions, and indigenous culture. A critical consequence of this linear planning is the spatial dislocation of the Rong house, which is now often pushed to the periphery of the village or relocated into school yards due to a lack of land (Nguyen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This physical disruption fractures communal living spaces, severely weakening social capital networks and pushing the community into a state of vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe profound contradiction between modern normative planning and indigenous spatial practices makes Mang But an ideal testing ground for an Urban Living Lab (ULL). Applying the ULL model here aims to transform intangible cultural heritage\u0026mdash;such as customary laws, spatial division rituals, and indigenous knowledge\u0026mdash;into an official empirical planning data layer. Through this, the research seeks to co-create an adaptive spatial framework, allowing modern infrastructure development to symbiotically coexist with the unique socio-spatial structure of the highlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Living Lab Approach: Spatial Transformation and Co-creation Empowerment\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo break down the barriers of top-down planning epistemologies that often impose rigid technical boundaries, this study establishes a specialized adaptive planning framework by transforming the Mang But settlement into an Urban Living Lab (ULL). This process is grounded in the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation (Baccarne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Almeida \u0026amp; Deutsch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), which emphasizes the inseparable roles of civil society (the indigenous community) and the natural environment in the production of spatial knowledge. Within this model, the natural environment is not merely a passive recipient of human intervention but an active agent shaping spatial innovation trajectories (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Fig.\u0026nbsp;1 here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe crux of transforming Mang But into a \"living lab\" lies in a fundamental methodological shift: transitioning local residents from passive \"researched subjects\" to active \"co-researchers\" in the planning process. This shift is highly compatible with the traditional social structure of the Xo Dang people. The Xo Dang society is characterized by a Gumlao-style heterarchical governance structure, distinguished by republican egalitarianism, an absence of coercive power, and democratic consensus in village decision-making (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, their profound community cohesion\u0026mdash;rooted in shared residency, mutual benefits, and a common destiny\u0026mdash;creates an ideal ecosystem for inclusive, sustained co-design activities (Ebbesson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperating as \"co-researchers,\" the Xo Dang people directly participate in producing and validating spatial data. However, rather than requiring residents to produce physical sketches (a method both impractical and forced within an oral culture), the ULL in Mang But employs a specialized spatial data collection toolkit comprising three integrated steps:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, GPS-assisted Transect Walks: Local residents and the council of village elders act as \"guides and navigators\". They directly lead experts on field surveys to pinpoint core sacred coordinates. GPS data is extracted to delineate the protective radius of the Rong House\u0026mdash;the centripetal architectural nucleus of the village\u0026mdash;and the absolute inviolable boundaries of the sacred water trough, the community's symbol of survival and the site of annual water rituals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Fig.\u0026nbsp;2 here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, Translating Oral Customary Laws into Spatial Logic: Researchers decode indigenous social conventions into urban design parameters. For instance, the customary law dictating that stilt house main doors must face a large stream or the sunrise, or the establishment of water-powered bamboo clacker (đ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;) systems along streams to protect crops, are digitized into building orientation codes and green infrastructure boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTranslation Matrix: From Intangible Heritage to Empirical Urban Design Parameters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntangible Heritage / Customary Law\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndigenous Spatial Logic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban Planning / Design Parameters\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWater Trough Ritual \u0026amp; Door Orientation\u003c/b\u003e: Stilt house doors must face the sacred stream or the sunrise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSacred Water Source\u003c/b\u003e: The \u003cem\u003eBến nước\u003c/em\u003e (water source) is an absolute, inviolable space vital for survival.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWater Protection Zone \u0026amp; Orientation\u003c/b\u003e: Establishment of groundwater protection zones and strict building orientation codes facing ecological corridors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNon-Hierarchical Governance\u003c/b\u003e: Gumlao-style social structure led by Village Elders with a focus on equality and communal consensus.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCommunity Convergence Core\u003c/b\u003e: The \u003cem\u003eRong House\u003c/em\u003e acts as the nuclear focal point for all communal gatherings and decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRadial Public Space\u003c/b\u003e: Design of multi-directional, inclusive public spaces that radiate outward from a central community anchor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFarm Protection Customs\u003c/b\u003e: Setting up water-powered bamboo clacker (\u003cem\u003eđ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;\u003c/em\u003e) systems along streams to guard terraced fields and swidden farms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCommunal Ownership\u003c/b\u003e: Land and ecological boundaries are managed collectively rather than individually owned.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGreen Infrastructure \u0026amp; Non-Grid-Iron Layout\u003c/b\u003e: Mapping green infrastructure boundaries; avoiding conventional private subdivision grids to preserve shared agricultural networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, Base-map Elicitation and Co-validation through Iterative Loops: The collected data is translated by the expert team into 2D/3D digital maps. During iterative co-design workshops, base-maps are printed for the community to evaluate, critique, and calibrate. The community's \"veto\" or consensus regarding spatial arrangements directly on the map serves as empirical evidence of a deeply participatory planning governance model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocio-Ecological Iteration Data (Demographics \u0026amp; Feedback) in the ULL process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkshop Iteration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants (Demographics)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExperts' Initial Proposal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity Feedback (Consensus/Veto)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMap Calibration Results (Co-validation)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRound 1\u003c/b\u003e: Basic infrastructure structure assessment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e: 45 participants (25 Male, 20 Female).\u003cb\u003eDetails\u003c/b\u003e: 3 Village elders, 15 Youths, 25 Middle-aged villagers, 2 Local planning officials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePropose a new transport route bisecting the natural stream area to optimize travel distance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVeto\u003c/b\u003e: Constructing a road across the stream violates the strict protection boundary of the sacred water trough.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCalibration\u003c/b\u003e: Relocate the entire route outside the ecological buffer zone; preserve the core space of the sacred water trough.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRound 2\u003c/b\u003e: Residential space and centripetal architecture review\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e: 52 participants (28 Male, 24 Female).\u003cb\u003eDetails\u003c/b\u003e: 4 Village elders, 20 Youths, 25 Villagers, 3 Local officials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlan the expanded settlement following a grid-iron layout for easy subdivision and land registration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVeto\u003c/b\u003e: The rigid grid-iron subdivision disrupts communal living structures and misaligns the traditional stilt house main doors (which must face the stream/sunrise).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCalibration\u003c/b\u003e: Cancel the grid-iron subdivision model; apply a multi-directional spatial design, establishing the Rong house as the radial center.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRound 3\u003c/b\u003e: Finalizing agricultural boundaries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e: 48 participants (22 Male, 26 Female).\u003cb\u003eDetails\u003c/b\u003e: 3 Village elders, 18 Youths, 25 Villagers, 2 Local officials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZone the agricultural farming area entirely separate from the natural forest buffer zone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePartial consensus \u0026amp; Addition\u003c/b\u003e: Propose expanding the green infrastructure boundary to integrate the water-powered bamboo clacker (\u003cem\u003eđ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;\u003c/em\u003e) system protecting the swidden farms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCalibration\u003c/b\u003e: Update the green infrastructure boundary to encompass the network of traditional agricultural tools.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough iterative interactions within the ULL framework, the intangible heritage in Mang But is no longer confined to purely cultural concepts. They are co-produced and extracted into Cultural-Spatial Datasets that are directly integrated into the GIS system. By empowering residents to take ownership of the data collection and coding process, the Living Lab model generates a bottom-up planning mechanism, providing practical evidence for a new design epistemology where community-led spatial knowledge becomes the core driver shaping the sustainability of highland settlements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection and Co-design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstead of applying top-down prescriptive design standards, this research relies on sustained co-design as a core methodology to engage diverse stakeholders in shaping sustainable urban solutions (Ebbesson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The data collection is not a unidirectional, \"extractive\" effort by the expert team, but rather a co-creative process. Within the ULL framework in Mang But, local residents actively participate as \"co-researchers\". Given the oral culture and organic spatial mindset of the Xo Dang people, the data collection process eschews conventional quantitative questionnaires or paper sketches, employing instead three integrated fieldwork steps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the research team established integrated fieldwork groups comprising urban planners, local government officials, and village elders (can pl\u0026acirc;y). The \"co-researcher\" role of the residents was actualized as they directly navigated and pinpointed the spatial survival boundaries of the settlement based on indigenous epistemologies. Using GPS devices, the research team digitized the coordinates of two critical spatial cores: the socio-architectural nucleus of the Rong house (recording its sphere of influence radiating toward the surrounding residential clusters) and the ecological buffer zones of the sacred water trough (bến nước) alongside the protective networks of water-powered bamboo clackers (đ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;). The residents' pride in defining these boundaries reflects profound community cohesion rooted in the communal ownership of land, forests, and water sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the research focused on collecting intangible data through in-depth interviews and decoding the \"customary laws\" of the village elders. Traditional Xo Dang society is characterized by a Gumlao-style heterarchical governance structure\u0026mdash;a system devoid of coercive power, where spatial and land conflicts are resolved through reconciliatory justice witnessed by deities and the community (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). From these interviews, the planning experts translated these customary laws into spatial logic. For instance, the customary law dictating that stilt house main doors must face the large stream or the sunrise, and that the Rong house must be located at the main gate to control village access, were decoded into organic planning parameters governing building orientation, centripetal layouts, and microclimate management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, data from the first two steps were compiled by the expert team into base-maps and 2D/3D spatial models, leading to iterative co-design workshops held directly at the Rong house. The multi-stakeholder participation formed a governance model perfectly aligned with the Quintuple Helix theory (Baccarne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Here, residents performed \"co-validation\" on the experts' blueprints. When a new infrastructure design was projected, residents evaluated it through the lens of their cultural space. Any proposal threatening to bisect the sacred water trough or marginalize the Rong house was vetoed by the community and required immediate adjustment. This iterative process generated a massive set of feedback data, ensuring that the final planning framework represents a profound consensus between modern technical advancement and indigenous spatial epistemologies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics and Stakeholder Representation in Co-design Workshops.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipant Group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData Provision Role \u0026amp; Function in ULL\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVillage elders / Village council\u003c/b\u003e (\u003cem\u003eCan pl\u0026acirc;y\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCore orientation role\u003c/b\u003e: Provide data on sacred spatial boundaries (locations of the Rong house, sacred water trough, and traditional house orientation). Decode customary laws and social conventions into spatial parameters, and make the final decisions in protecting the cultural core.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eXo Dang women\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMicro-level \u0026amp; daily life data provision\u003c/b\u003e: Contribute indigenous knowledge regarding daily livelihood routes (paths to the stream for water, foraging areas, and swidden farms). Ensure the internal transport network is organically connected to practical domestic and livelihood activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eXo Dang youths\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eField data \u0026amp; innovation dynamics provision\u003c/b\u003e: Provide feedback on the accessibility of new infrastructure and future spatial expansion needs. Assist the expert team in physically demanding fieldwork activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUrban planning experts\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCoordination \u0026amp; digitization role\u003c/b\u003e: Translate indigenous knowledge (from steps 1 \u0026amp; 2) into GIS data and 2D/3D digital maps. Present design proposals for community critique, while integrating modern technical standards into the design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLocal government officials\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInstitutional support role\u003c/b\u003e: Listen to feedback from the community and experts to guide policy. Ensure that bottom-up planning solutions are compatible with and legitimized within the existing legal framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis: Integrating Indigenous Epistemologies into Spatial Modeling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eClarification of the Analytical Modeling Scope It is essential to clarify the technical scope of the \"adaptive spatial modeling\" discussed in this study. This framework functions as a rule-based conceptual model empirically operationalized through GIS, rather than an autonomous computational algorithm or a real-time digital twin. The \"adaptive\" nature of the system is driven not by artificial intelligence, but by a structured socio-spatial feedback loop. Technically, the model operates on deterministic GIS topological rules (Point, Vector, and Polygon constraints) derived from intangible heritage. The fundamental evaluation criterion (the trigger for spatial adjustment) is intersection analysis: whenever a proposed modern infrastructure layer spatially intersects or violates an indigenous constraint layer (e.g., crossing a \"no-build\" ecological polygon), a spatial conflict alert is triggered. This triggers the community's empirical veto power during co-design workshops, mandating a manual recalibration of the spatial trajectory until it complies with both modern engineering standards and indigenous parameters.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data analysis process within the Mang But ULL marks an ontological shift in planning scholarship. Rather than treating intangible cultural heritage as a mere decorative element or a sociological appendix, this research establishes a methodology to parameterize and validate ritual practices and social conventions into an \"official empirical data layer\". This analytical phase is structured around the integration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and adaptive system modeling, viewed through the lens of the Quintuple Helix Model, where the Natural Environment actively shapes urban innovation trajectories (Carayannis \u0026amp; Campbell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Almeida \u0026amp; Deutsch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInitially, to codify intangible heritage into spatial data, the research team moves beyond traditional modern planning base-maps\u0026mdash;which typically rely only on physical layers such as topography, hydrology, and cadastral boundaries. Instead, cultural data gathered from the co-design process is overlaid into the GIS spatial analysis system. The customary laws and ritual practices of the Xo Dang people are coded into specific morphological parameters within the digital space. For instance, the coordinates of the Rong house\u0026mdash;the nucleus for the village council's decision-making and sacred rituals\u0026mdash;are established as the central point data (hub) for radial spatial network analysis, effectively rejecting the decentralized grid-iron structure. Furthermore, the traditional custom dictating that stilt house main doors must face the large stream or the sunrise is translated into vector data for building orientation and viewshed analysis. Simultaneously, the boundaries of the sacred water trough (bến nước) and the crop-protecting bamboo clacker (đ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;) system are digitized as polygon data, functioning as strict no-build zones or ecological buffer zones. Because Xo Dang society operates communally, with land and forests collectively owned, the GIS system maps Mang But using \"commons spatial mapping\" rather than applying rigid, privatized cadastral subdivisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubsequently, after integrating these cultural and physical data layers into GIS, the research employs rule-based GIS spatial queries to test various spatial scenarios. Moving away from static blueprints, this adaptive system analyzes spatio-temporal dynamics by incorporating the agricultural farming calendar and the Xo Dang's ning nong festival cycle into the model to calculate spatial resilience. GIS-based 2D/3D simulations are utilized to simulate whether a proposed infrastructure route might sever the ecological flow of the sacred water trough or isolate the Rong house from the residential cluster. Any scenario threatening to rupture the Gumlao-style social structure\u0026mdash;characterized by non-coercive, reconciliatory heterarchy (Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Le, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash; triggers a spatial conflict alert, prompting immediate trajectory adjustments. By treating intangible heritage as indispensable input data for simulation models, this analytical approach grants indigenous culture an \"ecological power\" equal to hard infrastructure standards. Ultimately, this leads to the emergence of an adaptive spatial governance mechanism, where technological advancement and urban design operate in harmony with the ecological knowledge and social order of highland communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGIS Coding Matrix: Epistemological Translation of Xo Dang Cultural Norms.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntangible Heritage / Cultural Practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGIS Data Classification\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlanning \u0026amp; Design Constraints\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRong house nuclear space\u003c/b\u003e: The venue for the village council's decision-making and sacred rituals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePoint Data\u003c/b\u003e: Establishing the central hub for the radial spatial network analysis algorithm.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRadial planning\u003c/b\u003e: Calculating the living radius radiating from the core; completely rejecting the decentralized grid-iron subdivision structure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCustom of stilt house door orientation\u003c/b\u003e: Main doors must face directly toward the large stream (sacred water trough) or the sunrise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eVector Data\u003c/b\u003e: Analyzing movement flows, building orientation vectors, and viewshed analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAdherence to the spiritual axis\u003c/b\u003e: Orienting structures closely along the sacred spatial axis; designing expanded spaces to face East or the stream.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSanctity of the sacred water trough \u0026amp; water-powered bamboo clacker (\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003eđ\u0026agrave;n m\u0026otilde;\u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\u003e) system\u003c/b\u003e: Inviolable symbols of survival and traditional tools for protecting swidden farms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePolygon Data\u003c/b\u003e: Digitized into spatial polygon layers, functioning as indigenous green infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrict ecological protection\u003c/b\u003e: Establishing No-build zones and natural ecological buffer zones; absolutely prohibiting land filling and encroachment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCommunal ownership regime\u003c/b\u003e: Land, mountains, streams, and headwater forests are collectively managed and owned by the entire village community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTopology\u003c/b\u003e: Commons spatial mapping with flexible (soft) boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNon-privatization of space\u003c/b\u003e: Maintaining the continuity of the ecological and farming networks; not applying rigid privatized cadastral subdivisions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":" \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDecoding Spatial Heritage: Sacred Coordinates and Radial Hubs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe spatial analysis results derived from GPS-assisted transect walks have re-established the authentic settlement morphology of the Xo Dang people, a structure completely absent from modern cadastral maps. Through the Urban Living Lab (ULL) process, the research successfully co-produced and validated two \"sacred coordinates\" as the central cores shaping the entire spatial planning layout.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first core is the governance and cultural nucleus, embodied by the centripetal structure of the Rong house (also known locally as gi\u0026ocirc;ng, cượt, or mnao). Instead of being pushed to the village periphery due to land shortages in modern planning projects, the Rong house is repositioned on the GIS map as the absolute community hub. Empirical data confirms that the Rong house is traditionally located near the main village gate to control access. Furthermore, it serves as the convergence of communal strength, the venue for the village council's decision-making, and the site for traditional festivals. From this nuclear coordinate, the ULL established a multi-directional radial public space network, which deeply reflects the democratic and republican egalitarian nature of the traditional Xo Dang society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe second core is the inviolable ecological nucleus, represented by the sacred water trough (bến nước). The co-design results indicate that the Xo Dang's selection of settlement land depends absolutely on a high-quality water source. Thus, the water trough is not merely water supply infrastructure but a sacred symbol of survival, hosting the annual water ritual. On the co-produced planning map, the water trough area and its surrounding vegetation are codified into a \"Strict Ecological No-build Zone\". This categorization creates a rigid spatial boundary that effectively neutralizes any attempts at concrete infrastructure interventions, safeguarding the ecological integrity of the settlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Fig.\u0026nbsp;3 here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Norms in Bounding Spatial Configurations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the breakthrough findings of the ULL model, viewed through the Quintuple Helix lens, is demonstrating how customary laws and non-hierarchical (heterarchy/Gumlao) social relations proactively establish planning boundaries.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData collected from the co-design workshops systematically dismantled the \"street-facing\" mindset typical of lowland urban planning. Xo Dang residential architecture adheres to a strict spatial logic: the main door must be located at the midpoint of the front wall and must directly face the large stream (where the sacred water trough is located) or the sunrise. This belief logic was translated by the GIS system into building orientation vectors and viewshed vectors, fundamentally shaping the overall spatial layout of the settlement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding green infrastructure, participatory mapping revealed that the protective boundaries of farming areas are established not by barbed wire, but by \"indigenous ecological infrastructure\". Specifically, the traditional bamboo clacker system (comprising stone pendulums, bamboo clackers, and water-powered seesaws) placed along streams to ward off wild animals was digitized into an acoustic and ecological buffer zone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, because Xo Dang society is inherently communal\u0026mdash;where land, mountains, and streams are collectively owned\u0026mdash;the ULL model completely eliminated rigid privatized cadastral subdivision lines. Instead, it applied a \"commons\" spatial ownership mechanism. In this system, flexible boundaries are managed and reconciled by the village council through sacred pacts (such as the klei bi ku\u0026ocirc;l brass ring ritual) rather than empirical law, generating a highly resilient spatial structure against natural fluctuations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Co-produced Adaptive Spatial Framework\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ultimate synthesis of the Mang But ULL is the creation of the Co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework. This framework represents a new epistemology in urban design, wherein the socio-ecological knowledge of indigenous people serves as the core guiding principle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis framework transcends the conventional concept of a static blueprint to operate as a spatio-temporal dynamics simulation system. For instance, it integrates the agricultural farming calendar and the ning nong festival cycle (a designated time for rest, ecological recovery, and community bonding) into the spatial management system. Consequently, any new infrastructure intervention (such as road construction or power grid expansion) must pass through the filter of this framework to ensure it does not sever the vital ecological flow connecting the sacred water trough to the Rong house, while simultaneously protecting the sacred spaces of the village.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy validating intangible heritage as quantitative GIS data layers\u0026mdash;such as the Rong house living radius, spiritual viewsheds, and ecological buffer zones\u0026mdash;the ULL in Mang But provides compelling evidence that culture is not merely an ethnographic object to be passively preserved in museums. Instead, these cultural elements can be operationalized as normative planning parameters. This bottom-up planning mechanism ensures that the advancement of modern infrastructure organically harmonizes with the unique socio-ecological system of the highlands.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e[insert Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e here]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Co-produced Adaptive Planning Framework: Integrating Xo Dang Epistemologies into Urban Design.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrban Design Layer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNormative Modern Planning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eULL Adaptive Framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCivic Hub\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePushed to the periphery\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentripetal structure at the Rong house\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGreen Infrastructure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcretization of water sources\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProtection zone for the sacred water trough and water-powered bamboo clacker system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousing Network\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStreet-facing grid-iron subdivision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHouse orientation facing the stream or sunrise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGovernance Structure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTop-down cadastral management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunal space and heterarchical governance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDebate Positioning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper positions itself at the center of an ongoing debate in urban design and planning scholarship concerning the epistemological foundations of participatory and adaptive planning. While Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are increasingly promoted as instruments for experimentation and governance innovation, dominant strands of the literature continue to conceptualize them primarily as technocratic platforms for policy testing, smart-city deployment, or socio-technical transition management. Such approaches, although valuable, often leave intact the underlying epistemic hierarchy in which expert knowledge retains ultimate authority, and local or indigenous knowledge is incorporated merely as contextual input or stakeholder feedback. By contrast, this study explicitly challenges these assumptions by theorizing ULLs as epistemological infrastructures\u0026mdash;arenas where the very criteria of what counts as valid planning knowledge are renegotiated and reconstituted through co-production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy empirically demonstrating how intangible indigenous epistemologies can be translated into authoritative GIS-based planning parameters without being reduced to static cultural artifacts, the paper intervenes in broader debates on adaptivity, power, and legitimacy in urban design. It departs from prevailing interpretations of adaptive planning that equate adaptability with algorithmic intelligence, real-time data, or digital automation, and instead advances a socially governed model of adaptivity rooted in collective consensus, ritual practice, and heterarchical governance. In doing so, the study contests the epistemic dominance of normative, grid-based, top-down planning frameworks and aligns with post-positivist, decolonial, and Southern urbanism perspectives. The Mang But Urban Living Lab thus exemplifies how indigenous communities can move beyond the role of consulted stakeholders to become epistemic agents who co-produce, validate, and govern spatial knowledge\u0026mdash;thereby reframing ULLs not as neutral laboratories, but as transformative arenas of epistemological contestation and spatial justice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo fully conceptualize this shift, it is necessary to clarify the nature of epistemology in urban planning. In planning theory, epistemology refers to the foundational assumptions regarding what constitutes valid knowledge, who is authorized to produce it, and how that knowledge acquires legitimacy. Historically, normative, top-down planning relies on positivist and technocratic epistemologies, wherein only objective, quantifiable metrics\u0026mdash;such as rigid cadastral grids and top-down engineering standards\u0026mdash;are recognized as valid evidence. This study explicitly challenges that paradigm. First, regarding what knowledge counts, the proposed framework validates intangible cultural heritage, ritual practices, and indigenous customary laws as official, empirical spatial data layers. Second, concerning who produces knowledge, the ULL framework dismantles the monopoly of external state planners by empowering the marginalized Xo Dang people as active \"co-researchers\". This transitions them from passive subjects of study to primary knowledge generators. Finally, in terms of how knowledge gains legitimacy, validity is no longer derived from administrative mandates. Instead, legitimacy is established through iterative, bottom-up co-validation and democratic consensus grounded in the community\u0026rsquo;s heterarchical (Gumlao) governance structure. Consequently, this framework represents a fully theorized epistemological transformation rather than merely an applied spatial innovation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCritical reflection on ULL governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the Mang But ULL demonstrates significant emancipatory potential, it is crucial not to romanticize it as an idealized, conflict-free participatory space. In reality, ULL governance involves continuous negotiations of power, revealing inherent tensions between different knowledge systems. A critical question arises regarding who ultimately controls the ULL agenda and whether the state retains veto power. Within this framework, local government officials participated primarily to provide \"institutional support,\" ensuring that bottom-up spatial solutions could be legitimized within the rigid existing legal framework. However, this dynamic often led to friction, as state policymakers typically prioritize short-term economic efficiency and standardized administrative management, which fundamentally diverges from the indigenous community's focus on ecological sanctity and spatial resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, the ULL was punctuated by moments of acute disagreement rather than immediate consensus. Empirical data from the iterative co-design workshops reveals direct conflicts when modern planning logic was introduced. For instance, the community actively exercised a \"bottom-up veto\" against initial state-aligned technical proposals, specifically rejecting the construction of a new transport route that bisected the sacred water trough, and firmly opposing the grid-iron layout for residential expansion. Ultimately, while the local government retains the statutory authority to approve the final master plan, the ULL functioned as a necessary agonistic arena. It provided a structured space where the marginalized Xo Dang people could effectively negotiate, leverage their cultural epistemology, and force structural adjustments against top-down mandates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Role of the Living Lab in Fostering New Epistemologies\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe catalytic role of the ULL in fostering a new planning epistemology is most evident through the perfect resonance between the co-design method and the traditional heterarchical social structure of the Xo Dang people. As documented, Xo Dang society is characterized by the Gumlao community type, distinguished by republican egalitarianism and an absence of coercive power or a despotic state. In this space, spatial conflicts are not resolved by administrative mandates but by reconciliatory justice through the role of the village council at the Rong house.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ULL model absorbed this non-coercive governance principle and transformed it into a new design epistemology. By empowering residents as \"co-researchers\", the ULL comprehensively resolved the governance ruptures caused by modern resettlement projects (e.g., the grid-iron layout pushing the Rong house to the periphery). Furthermore, applying the Quintuple Helix model elevated the Natural Environment to an active agent in planning. Through the ULL, sensitive ecological zones vulnerable to infrastructure planning were protected by the community's belief shield, exemplified by the strict zoning of the sacred water trough\u0026mdash;the inviolable symbol of the village's survival.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMethodological Considerations and Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the ULL provides an advantageous approach, applying this model in highland ethnic minority settlements presents methodological limitations that must be objectively acknowledged. First, the process of \"translating\" flexible oral customary laws into rigid GIS parameters carries the risk of oversimplifying complex cultural nuances. Second, the ULL model requires sustained multi-stakeholder consensus, yet there is often a divergence of goals between policymakers (who prioritize short-term economic efficiency) and indigenous communities (who prioritize sanctity and ecological sustainability). Third, generational rupture driven by the market economy and urbanization poses a significant barrier. Current Xo Dang youth tend to neglect traditional values, showing less interest in preserving gongs or the Rong house space, making it challenging to ensure equitable cross-generational participation in co-design workshops. Finally, sustaining a ULL frequently encounters significant barriers regarding the continuity of funding, often resulting in solutions that remain short-term pilot projects rather than taking long-term root.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the heterarchical structure of the Xo Dang society promotes egalitarianism, it is critical to avoid the \"romanticisation of elders\" by equating the village council's voice with the entire community's consensus. Relying solely on the can pl\u0026acirc;y (village elders) carries the inherent risk of \"elite capture\" within the participatory process, potentially subjecting marginalized groups, particularly women and youth, to \"symbolic silence.\" To mitigate these internal power asymmetries, the Mang But ULL methodology deliberately employed multi-round iterative workshops with carefully balanced demographics. Rather than treating the community as a monolith, specific spatial knowledge roles were distributed. While the elders defined macro-level sacred boundaries, 25 Xo Dang women were empowered to co-produce micro-level spatial data. They mapped daily livelihood routes\u0026mdash;such as paths to the sacred water trough and foraging areas\u0026mdash;ensuring that the new spatial framework addressed pragmatic domestic realities. Similarly, 20 youths were actively engaged in the physically demanding GPS transect walks and provided critical feedback on future infrastructure accessibility. Although generational ruptures remain an ongoing challenge, this structured, multi-demographic engagement ensures that the community's spatial veto power represents a genuinely collective consensus rather than a top-down mandate from traditional elites.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConditions for transferability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the empirical findings in the Mang But ULL are deeply contextualized, the methodological framework offers analytical generalizability beyond this specific case. It is crucial to distinguish between what is context-specific\u0026mdash;such as the spatial parameters of the Rong house or the bến nước sacred water trough\u0026mdash;and what is methodologically generalizable, namely the epistemological translation of intangible heritage into empirical GIS data via sustained co-design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding transferability to other marginalized or indigenous communities, this methodology is not exclusively restricted to heterarchical (Gumlao) societies. Rather, its replicability depends on specific socio-political and structural preconditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, if a community possesses strong socio-spatial cohesion rooted in communal practices and retains functional traditional institutions (such as recognized cultural custodians or a council of elders), then this ULL co-researcher framework is highly feasible. These elements provide the fundamental social capital necessary to sustain iterative co-validation and decode spatial logic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, if a community suffers from severe generational rupture where indigenous epistemologies are heavily degraded, or if the state apparatus imposes an absolute coercive, top-down mandate without providing an agonistic space for negotiation, then the bottom-up co-production model will inevitably collapse. The local government's willingness to provide institutional support\u0026mdash;allowing community-led spatial vetoes to be integrated into formal statutory planning\u0026mdash;is the decisive variable. Ultimately, the broader analytical lesson is that this adaptive planning framework is transferable to any context where local spatial knowledge can be systematically codified and politically legitimized as an empirical planning layer.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for Practice and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a practical perspective, this research sends a strong message to policymakers: spatial planning in ethnic minority areas cannot succeed without the participation and knowledge of indigenous communities. To scale up this co-produced adaptive planning framework to other highland settlements, local governments must integrate the ULL mechanism into official urban and rural strategic planning. Particularly, to sustain the lifecycle of ULLs, hybrid financing models should be applied, combining local public budgets with national development funds and civil society contributions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding future research directions, urban design scholars can further expand this epistemological foundation by integrating advanced technologies such as Digital Twins and Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the ULL model. Utilizing digital simulations not only helps visualize cultural spatial boundaries but also accurately predicts the impacts of climate change and infrastructure development on the highland Socio-Ecological System. Through this, ULLs will continue to affirm their role as profoundly transformative arenas, where modern technology and indigenous knowledge intertwine to forge sustainable, inclusive, and humane urban futures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study challenges normative modern planning epistemologies by demonstrating that intangible cultural heritage is not merely a passive object of ethnographic preservation, but can serve as a normative empirical data layer in urban design. By establishing an Urban Living Lab (ULL) in the Mang But settlement, the research shifts from a top-down prescriptive planning method to a bottom-up co-creation mechanism, where the indigenous Xo Dang people act as legitimate \"co-researchers\".\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough the lens of the Quintuple Helix Model of innovation, the ULL in Mang But highlights the indispensable roles of civil society and the natural environment in spatial production. Instead of accepting the spatial ruptures caused by the grid-iron layout\u0026mdash;which marginalizes the Rong house and fractures community cohesion\u0026mdash;this study codified indigenous customary laws and beliefs into Geographic Information System (GIS) parameters. Consequently, the co-produced Adaptive Spatial Planning Framework re-established a centripetal structure around the Rong house and designated strict ecological protection zones for the sacred water trough. This structure accurately reflects the Gumlao-style heterarchical governance order and the profound community cohesion of the Xo Dang people, rooted in shared residency and mutual benefits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, this research contributes a new epistemology to urban planning scholarship, asserting that ULLs are not merely real-life test environments to de-risk infrastructure projects, but are profoundly transformative arenas. In these spaces, digital solutions and economic advancements are compelled to harmonize with indigenous ecological knowledge. Practically, the findings deliver a strategic message for sustainable development in the Central Highlands: policies on planning, resettlement, and infrastructure development will continue to damage social capital networks if traditional cultural values are ignored. To forge inclusive, safe, and resilient urban futures, policymakers must institutionalize the ULL model into official spatial strategic frameworks, ensuring that modern infrastructure development is firmly rooted in the specific Socio-Ecological System of indigenous communities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eConsent Statement: All study participants, and/or their legal guardians where applicable, provided informed consent to participate in this research. In cases where consent was waived, the waiver was formally reviewed and approved by the ethics committee.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eH.H.T. conceptualized the research, designed the Urban Living Lab (ULL) methodology, and wrote the main manuscript text. L.Q.T. conducted the fieldwork in Mang But, collected empirical spatial data through GPS-assisted transect walks, and engaged with the local community. L.N.V.L. performed the GIS data analysis, translated cultural norms into spatial parameters, and prepared the maps and figures. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors express our deepest gratitude to the Xo Dang community in the Mang But settlement for their invaluable participation as co-researchers in this Urban Living Lab. Special thanks go to the village elders (can pl\u0026acirc;y) for sharing their sacred spatial knowledge, as well as the local women and youth for their active engagement in the co-design workshops and field surveys. Without their profound socio-ecological wisdom and collaborative spirit, the co-production of this adaptive spatial planning framework would not have been possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the indigenous cultural data and precise spatial coordinates (e.g., the sacred water trough and the Rong house) in order to protect the privacy and intangible heritage of the Xo Dang community. However, de-identified and aggregated data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmeida, F. and Deutsch, N. (2025) \u003cem\u003eUrban living labs as catalysts for innovation: Advancing urban ecosystems within the quintuple helix model\u003c/em\u003e. Urban Governance 5: 133\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D. and De Marez, L. (2016) \u003cem\u003eGoverning quintuple helix innovation: urban living labs and socio-ecological entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e. Technology Innovation Management Review 6(3): 22\u0026ndash;30, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://timreview.ca/article/972\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://timreview.ca/article/972\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F. and Palgan, Y.V. (2016) \u003cem\u003eUrban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions\u003c/em\u003e. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 13\u0026ndash;17, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (2010) \u003cem\u003eTriple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and Social ecology\u003c/em\u003e. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD) 1(1): 41\u0026ndash;69, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4018/jsesd.2010010105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/jsesd.2010010105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, M., Huang, X., Cheng, J., Tang, Z. and Huang, G. (2023) \u003cem\u003eUrbanization and vulnerable employment: empirical evidence from 163 countries in 1991\u0026ndash;2019\u003c/em\u003e. Cities 135: 104208, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.cities.2023.104208\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cities.2023.104208\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCoghlan, D. (2019) \u003cem\u003eDoing action research in your own organization\u003c/em\u003e. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEbbesson, E., Lund, J. and Smith, R.C. (2024) \u003cem\u003eDynamics of sustained co-design in urban living labs\u003c/em\u003e. CoDesign 20(3): 422\u0026ndash;439, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/15710882.2024.2303115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/15710882.2024.2303115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaborgne, P., Ekille, E., Wendel, J., Pierce, A., Heyder, M., Suchomska, J., Nichersu, I., Balaican, D., Ślebioda, K., Wr\u0026oacute;blewski, M. and Goszczynski, W. (2021) \u003cem\u003eUrban living labs: how to enable inclusive transdisciplinary research?\u003c/em\u003e Urban Transformations 3(11): 1\u0026ndash;18, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s42854-021-00026-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s42854-021-00026-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLe, N.B. (2017) \u003cem\u003eSocial organization and community cohesion in Xo Dang epic\u003c/em\u003e (Tổ chức x\u0026atilde; hội v\u0026agrave; sự cố kết cộng đồng trong sử thi Xơ Đăng). Tạp ch\u0026iacute; Khoa học Đại học Đ\u0026agrave; Lạt 7(4): 447\u0026ndash;460.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNguyen, M.H. (2017) \u003cem\u003ePromoting the cultural values of the Xo Dang ethnic group in Quang Ngai today\u003c/em\u003e (Vấn đề ph\u0026aacute;t huy gi\u0026aacute; trị văn h\u0026oacute;a d\u0026acirc;n tộc Xơ Đăng ở Quang Ngai hiện nay). Master's thesis, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRizzo, A., Habibipour, A. and St\u0026aring;hlbr\u0026ouml;st, A. (2021) \u003cem\u003eTransformative thinking and urban living labs in planning practice: a critical review and ongoing case studies in Europe\u003c/em\u003e. European Planning Studies 29(10): 1739\u0026ndash;1757, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/09654313.2021.1911955\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09654313.2021.1911955\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScholl, C., de Kraker, J. and Dijk, M. (2022) \u003cem\u003eEnhancing the contribution of urban living labs to sustainability transformations: towards a meta-lab approach. Urban Transformations\u003c/em\u003e 4(7): 1\u0026ndash;13, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s42854-022-00038-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s42854-022-00038-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStringer, E.T. and Arag\u0026oacute;n, A.O. (2020) \u003cem\u003eAction research. Thousand Oaks\u003c/em\u003e, CA: SAGE Publications.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran, H.Q. (2016) \u003cem\u003eSocial changes in Central Highlands villages: Two key dimensions\u003c/em\u003e (Biến đổi x\u0026atilde; hội của bu\u0026ocirc;n l\u0026agrave;ng T\u0026acirc;y Nguy\u0026ecirc;n: Hai chiều k\u0026iacute;ch then chốt). Tạp ch\u0026iacute; Khoa học X\u0026atilde; hội 2(210): 25\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu, P., Wei, Y., Ma, L., Wang, B., Yung, E. and Chen, Y. (2024) \u003cem\u003eUrbanization and the urban critical zone\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eEarth Critical Zone\u003c/em\u003e 1(1): 100011, doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.ecz.2024.100011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecz.2024.100011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-design-international","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [URBAN DESIGN International](https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41289)","snPcode":"41289","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41289/3","title":"URBAN DESIGN International","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer SNAPPs","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Urban Living Labs, New Epistemologies, Co-design, Intangible Cultural Heritage, Adaptive Spatial Planning","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHighland ethnic communities in Vietnam face severe spatial ruptures due to top-down normative planning that overlooks indigenous cultural practices. Addressing this, this study transforms the Mang But settlement (Quang Ngai) into an Urban Living Lab (ULL) to co-produce an adaptive spatial planning framework. Engaging the Xo Dang people as co-researchers within a Quintuple Helix model, the research translates intangible cultural heritage\u0026mdash;such as heterarchical governance and sacred water rituals\u0026mdash;into empirical urban design parameters using GIS and iterative co-design. This process spatializes indigenous knowledge, replacing rigid grid-iron layouts with a resilient radial morphology centered on the communal Rong house and ecological buffer zones. By validating intangible heritage as official spatial data, this framework introduces a new epistemology for urban design, demonstrating how community-led practices can foster socio-ecological sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Transformative Arenas: Spatializing Indigenous Epistemologies through an Urban Living Lab in Vietnam's Highlands","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-06 09:41:27","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266656/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"213910005185200487777316133833394309614","date":"2026-04-27T09:52:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-27T09:37:50+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-11T13:38:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-31T12:17:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"URBAN DESIGN International","date":"2026-03-30T11:57:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"urban-design-international","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [URBAN DESIGN International](https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41289)","snPcode":"41289","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41289/3","title":"URBAN DESIGN International","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer SNAPPs","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6986f677-913e-4f45-9330-614afe0981cb","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T09:54:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-06 09:41:27","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9266656","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9266656","identity":"rs-9266656","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}