Urban Arena Wiki - User contributions [en]

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2021-03-14T12:12:26Z

Jakob Kramer: /* 12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role? */

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]
{{toclimit|limit=2}}
== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

==='''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''===

This intervention focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, a Swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

This project initially focused on sustainable neighbourhood development with the goals of constructing an effective drainage system, energy retrofitting buildings, and supporting biodiversity efforts. Additional social, ecological, and economical topics were adopted over the course of the project.

==='''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''===

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

==='''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''===

There is a broad focus on sustainability, which includes several measures within different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small-scale wind, and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*Modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising campaigns, training programs, and agreements in rental contracts
*A wide variety of goals surrounding '''mobility''', prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport; they encouraged local use of electric vehicles and carpooling among residents, as well as the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service.
*Goals to green the area, particularly on roofs, with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity'''
*Creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70%. The capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was regularly exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
*Annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organized visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages. In some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

==='''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''===

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that promoted the image of an eco-neighbourhood that happened much later, e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg; a high-rise building with passive-house energy standards that was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as the one mentioned below). However, the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

==='''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''===

It is '''government-led''' but characterized by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members later in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

==='''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref> '''===

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability, while also considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and documentation by SMARTEES is extensive (see Question 8a). Developing a neighbourhood in a holistic, integrative way is crucial, as it aims at breaking down institutional logics and compartmentalized policymaking, leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

==='''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''===

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

==='''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''===

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, which has taken place from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

==='''9. Problematization and priority:'''===

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

The area had experienced high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems, which affects the general quality of life problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Not directly. More so in that quality of life in the area in general is quite low compared to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) and '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from flooding that could not be handled well in the past due to lack of a working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

==='''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''===

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

==='''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''===

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), and environmental health. Also noted are an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialization, etc.), a decrease of unemployment, and an increase of political participation.

==='''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
| Yes
| University of Malmö
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| Yes
| Several private companies and local businesses as well as The Swedish energy company Sydkraft
|-
| Local/regional government
| Yes
| The City of Malmö, represented by the Fosie district and the Service Department
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| Yes
| School managers
|}

==='''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''===

The role of certain enthusiastic '''individuals''' has been emphasized by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Specifically mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren and MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Particularly in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions who tried to address ALL issues in the area, caring little if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

==='''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''===

Citizen participation is key to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations, thereby having the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings, and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation during different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, proponents thought about which projects based in physical investment had the greatest scope for public involvement in terms of design and project development (which have opportunities for jobs etc.). (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance. Thus plans still had to be adapted by residents, and the focus was on creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but additional green roofs were created when the community included them in their designs for the waste-management houses (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several of their ideas were implemented into the neighbourhood, such as:
* developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children, and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

Additionally, school pupils were involved in different aspects of the project, e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project, which led to less public/neighbourhood interest (see Q.23). This made future efforts in the neighbourhood more difficult, as it hollowed out trust by residents.

==='''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''===

This project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality, who remained in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of their relationships were crucial for successfully developing and implementing interventions to positively change the district.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop several of their own ideas.

==='''16. Exclusion:'''===

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, whom the municipality tried to include them as well (see below). However, there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-Swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers had been printed in other languages and interpreters accompanied the participation processes, which helped to include non-Swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

==='''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''===

The area had high status when it was newly built (1948-1952), but started to decline in the 1970´s, when many problems, from flooding basements to high unemployment rates emerged. By the 1990´s, the neighbourhood was faced with social, ecological, and aesthetic problems that ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger was a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department of the City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time, the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company, who was the housing manager of Augustenborg, with the mission to renew the area. Together, the three contacted senior officers, colleagues, and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district in Malmö.
More than 400 people showed up at the first meeting to talk about flooding issues, the need for an adequate drainage system, green roofs, and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
Trevor Graham, a project leader with experience in transforming communities, was hired in 1998. As the project developed, local businesses, schools, and the industrial estate became a part of it.

==='''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''===

It does not seem that one general policy was critical for the project. However, Augustenborg was closely linked to developments at the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
Toward the late 90´s, a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension emerged (e.g with Agenda 21 movements). Social inclusion was thus a highly influential and popular narrative of the time.
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present in Malmö, and in Sweden in general, e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, and general economic decline. These led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''===

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology adoption through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987, updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as to reconstruction. It brings attention to climate and environmental issues and attempts to better regulate construction and give planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to ensure that all new developments are planned in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes special laws that concern changes in the physical environment and aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, and land.
Fig. 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a monopoly in generating comprehensive plans for their cities, although the Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines, e.g. for air quality.

==='''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''===

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham).
This was also connected to inclusionary practices, with the knowledge that projects are more widely accepted if developed together with residents.
A a holistic and integrative way of planning, this was demonstrated through efforts to address resident’s energy consumption behaviour rather than relying purely on technical solutions.
Inclusionary practices do result, however, in longer implementation times and changes to the original plans for the intervention.

In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralized. This allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Again, however, working in partnerships is not a very common or well-developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01

==='''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''===

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB). The rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention, as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

==='''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''===

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed, and the Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company, as well as among residents. The project was mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
Several other people in power changed over the course of the project. This led to a change of culture around responsibilities, as some of the newer people felt less responsible for a holistic change of the area and rather cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

==='''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''===

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time. Not everybody involved in the project saw the need for this engagement, and some people were actively opposed to it (e.g some of the contractors' architechts did not see the point of involving residents) (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, names continuity as the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation was easy, as there was a wide public interest in the intervention. This faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time, as there were times in which the housing company/the municipality were less active. This generated problems for the long-term belief in a process for change for local people, leading to questions like “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so”? (Interview_Trevor Graham).
Simply put, there was very high public interest in the beginning (first three - four years) but decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something greater) (Interview Trevor Graham).

In this case, efforts to include residents, even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention, led to greater public support. However there were still some instances of resistance from a few individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg, posing challenges to their inclusion. This issue was tried to be overcome by hiring interpreters and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents' issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

==='''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” by letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project when they did not feel that the institutions were equally committed. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages partly addressed trust issues between community members and the municipality and housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and interpreters were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

==='''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''===

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees, and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (Malmö’s average).
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%.
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small-scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project.
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater.
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%.
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts.
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased.

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

==='''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''===

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) .
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

==='''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''===

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. However, there are no specificities about where they got their ideas from.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shared a story from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time until he began working in recycling through an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector and is now working as a doctor again.
Another story comes from a woman who was highly opposed to the idea of recycling (and who part of the project), but then discovered the car pool and afterward became very involved in it. These interventions therefore can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

==='''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''===

Not applicable.

==='''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''===

The implementation process changed over the course of the project. As mentioned, the greatest challenge of the development project was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As central staff (along with their priorities) changed, the project lost credibility and support. The project then had to find new ways of doing things, such as giving residents more decision-making power and making them responsible for certain parts of the project. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they planned, but the new ways can be interesting and much more diverse as a result.

==='''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''===

n/a

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

==='''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''===

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of replicability or transferability. Rather, single elements (e.g energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognized by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010,” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability).
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods, saying that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö, Sweden, and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organization of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden, as well as the "world's first electric road train" (a zero emission electric street train service), could both be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Particular focus in areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in Sweden these are mostly areas of the “Million Home Program”) and 70´s buildings, and especially in northern European areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The World Habitats Award, Project Manager Trevor Graham

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment), which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was not there (Interview Trevor Graham). At one point, for example, the local housing company in Rosengard informed residents about project plans through information screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings. These are important platforms at which long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned, relationships can be established, etc. .

When transferring physical changes of a project, it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that both institutions and local people are willing to change the area in the short-term while investing resources over a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking joint long-term approaches and shared visions of change, and are rather operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is connected to political issues that make such joint ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). Therefore, learning in general is hindered and leads to repeating the same mistakes in other projects. This is visible through the fragmented way of engaging with communities, where each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city level, these units can be brought together through an intermediary organization connecting neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalized way of organized learning on an individual level as well, and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires strong communication skills and an existing network with businesses, city departments, and in local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working as these intermediaries. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref> '''===

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project in its different aspects.
In particular, the section titled “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas, and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part described in Q. 17 about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). Over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general, the intervention is well recognized (inter)-nationally, and has received special attention surrounding the World Habitats Award, who additionally published a document about why Augustenborg deserves the prize (WorldHeritageAward_01). They included an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievements”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

==='''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''===

Several aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled, especially in Malmö and Sweden:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over the city (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%, for example with climate coaches inspiring residents about sustainable lifestyles and technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are several other aspects that were reportedly transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world, especially regarding waste-management, car-pooling, recycling, and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

==='''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''===

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seems to be no institutionalized bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham criticizes this: the city operates mostly on a project-by-project basis and lacks shared, long-term visions of change across departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

==='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''===

Adopting a context-specific perspective of what could be done and working with residents to figure out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results than simply transferring best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

==='''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''===

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project (from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc.) collectively worked on ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were officially responsible for each issue. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Also important is to combine elements of social and physical change, which creates a reinforcing process (e.g. seeing that a neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood, one might think that they could do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2021-03-14T12:12:14Z

Jakob Kramer: /* 12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role? */

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]
{{toclimit|limit=2}}
== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

==='''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''===

This intervention focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, a Swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

This project initially focused on sustainable neighbourhood development with the goals of constructing an effective drainage system, energy retrofitting buildings, and supporting biodiversity efforts. Additional social, ecological, and economical topics were adopted over the course of the project.

==='''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''===

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

==='''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''===

There is a broad focus on sustainability, which includes several measures within different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small-scale wind, and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*Modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising campaigns, training programs, and agreements in rental contracts
*A wide variety of goals surrounding '''mobility''', prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport; they encouraged local use of electric vehicles and carpooling among residents, as well as the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service.
*Goals to green the area, particularly on roofs, with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity'''
*Creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70%. The capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was regularly exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
*Annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organized visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages. In some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

==='''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''===

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that promoted the image of an eco-neighbourhood that happened much later, e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg; a high-rise building with passive-house energy standards that was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as the one mentioned below). However, the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

==='''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''===

It is '''government-led''' but characterized by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members later in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

==='''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref> '''===

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability, while also considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and documentation by SMARTEES is extensive (see Question 8a). Developing a neighbourhood in a holistic, integrative way is crucial, as it aims at breaking down institutional logics and compartmentalized policymaking, leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

==='''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''===

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

==='''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''===

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, which has taken place from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

==='''9. Problematization and priority:'''===

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

The area had experienced high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems, which affects the general quality of life problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Not directly. More so in that quality of life in the area in general is quite low compared to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) and '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from flooding that could not be handled well in the past due to lack of a working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

==='''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''===

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

==='''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''===

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), and environmental health. Also noted are an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialization, etc.), a decrease of unemployment, and an increase of political participation.

==='''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
| Yes
| University of Malmö
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| Yes
| Several private companies and local businesses
as well as The Swedish energy company Sydkraft
|-
| Local/regional government
| Yes
| The City of Malmö, represented by the Fosie district and the Service Department
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| Yes
| School managers
|}

==='''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''===

The role of certain enthusiastic '''individuals''' has been emphasized by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Specifically mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren and MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Particularly in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions who tried to address ALL issues in the area, caring little if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

==='''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''===

Citizen participation is key to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations, thereby having the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings, and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation during different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, proponents thought about which projects based in physical investment had the greatest scope for public involvement in terms of design and project development (which have opportunities for jobs etc.). (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance. Thus plans still had to be adapted by residents, and the focus was on creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but additional green roofs were created when the community included them in their designs for the waste-management houses (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several of their ideas were implemented into the neighbourhood, such as:
* developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children, and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

Additionally, school pupils were involved in different aspects of the project, e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project, which led to less public/neighbourhood interest (see Q.23). This made future efforts in the neighbourhood more difficult, as it hollowed out trust by residents.

==='''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''===

This project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality, who remained in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of their relationships were crucial for successfully developing and implementing interventions to positively change the district.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop several of their own ideas.

==='''16. Exclusion:'''===

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, whom the municipality tried to include them as well (see below). However, there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-Swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers had been printed in other languages and interpreters accompanied the participation processes, which helped to include non-Swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

==='''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''===

The area had high status when it was newly built (1948-1952), but started to decline in the 1970´s, when many problems, from flooding basements to high unemployment rates emerged. By the 1990´s, the neighbourhood was faced with social, ecological, and aesthetic problems that ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger was a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department of the City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time, the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company, who was the housing manager of Augustenborg, with the mission to renew the area. Together, the three contacted senior officers, colleagues, and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district in Malmö.
More than 400 people showed up at the first meeting to talk about flooding issues, the need for an adequate drainage system, green roofs, and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
Trevor Graham, a project leader with experience in transforming communities, was hired in 1998. As the project developed, local businesses, schools, and the industrial estate became a part of it.

==='''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''===

It does not seem that one general policy was critical for the project. However, Augustenborg was closely linked to developments at the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
Toward the late 90´s, a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension emerged (e.g with Agenda 21 movements). Social inclusion was thus a highly influential and popular narrative of the time.
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present in Malmö, and in Sweden in general, e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, and general economic decline. These led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''===

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology adoption through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987, updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as to reconstruction. It brings attention to climate and environmental issues and attempts to better regulate construction and give planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to ensure that all new developments are planned in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes special laws that concern changes in the physical environment and aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, and land.
Fig. 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a monopoly in generating comprehensive plans for their cities, although the Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines, e.g. for air quality.

==='''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''===

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham).
This was also connected to inclusionary practices, with the knowledge that projects are more widely accepted if developed together with residents.
A a holistic and integrative way of planning, this was demonstrated through efforts to address resident’s energy consumption behaviour rather than relying purely on technical solutions.
Inclusionary practices do result, however, in longer implementation times and changes to the original plans for the intervention.

In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralized. This allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Again, however, working in partnerships is not a very common or well-developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01

==='''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''===

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB). The rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention, as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

==='''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''===

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed, and the Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company, as well as among residents. The project was mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
Several other people in power changed over the course of the project. This led to a change of culture around responsibilities, as some of the newer people felt less responsible for a holistic change of the area and rather cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

==='''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''===

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time. Not everybody involved in the project saw the need for this engagement, and some people were actively opposed to it (e.g some of the contractors' architechts did not see the point of involving residents) (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, names continuity as the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation was easy, as there was a wide public interest in the intervention. This faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time, as there were times in which the housing company/the municipality were less active. This generated problems for the long-term belief in a process for change for local people, leading to questions like “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so”? (Interview_Trevor Graham).
Simply put, there was very high public interest in the beginning (first three - four years) but decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something greater) (Interview Trevor Graham).

In this case, efforts to include residents, even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention, led to greater public support. However there were still some instances of resistance from a few individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg, posing challenges to their inclusion. This issue was tried to be overcome by hiring interpreters and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents' issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

==='''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” by letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project when they did not feel that the institutions were equally committed. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages partly addressed trust issues between community members and the municipality and housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and interpreters were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

==='''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''===

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees, and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (Malmö’s average).
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%.
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small-scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project.
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater.
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%.
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts.
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased.

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

==='''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''===

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) .
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

==='''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''===

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. However, there are no specificities about where they got their ideas from.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shared a story from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time until he began working in recycling through an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector and is now working as a doctor again.
Another story comes from a woman who was highly opposed to the idea of recycling (and who part of the project), but then discovered the car pool and afterward became very involved in it. These interventions therefore can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

==='''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''===

Not applicable.

==='''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''===

The implementation process changed over the course of the project. As mentioned, the greatest challenge of the development project was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As central staff (along with their priorities) changed, the project lost credibility and support. The project then had to find new ways of doing things, such as giving residents more decision-making power and making them responsible for certain parts of the project. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they planned, but the new ways can be interesting and much more diverse as a result.

==='''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''===

n/a

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

==='''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''===

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of replicability or transferability. Rather, single elements (e.g energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognized by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010,” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability).
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods, saying that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö, Sweden, and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organization of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden, as well as the "world's first electric road train" (a zero emission electric street train service), could both be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Particular focus in areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in Sweden these are mostly areas of the “Million Home Program”) and 70´s buildings, and especially in northern European areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The World Habitats Award, Project Manager Trevor Graham

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment), which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was not there (Interview Trevor Graham). At one point, for example, the local housing company in Rosengard informed residents about project plans through information screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings. These are important platforms at which long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned, relationships can be established, etc. .

When transferring physical changes of a project, it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that both institutions and local people are willing to change the area in the short-term while investing resources over a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking joint long-term approaches and shared visions of change, and are rather operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is connected to political issues that make such joint ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). Therefore, learning in general is hindered and leads to repeating the same mistakes in other projects. This is visible through the fragmented way of engaging with communities, where each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city level, these units can be brought together through an intermediary organization connecting neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalized way of organized learning on an individual level as well, and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires strong communication skills and an existing network with businesses, city departments, and in local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working as these intermediaries. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref> '''===

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project in its different aspects.
In particular, the section titled “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas, and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part described in Q. 17 about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). Over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general, the intervention is well recognized (inter)-nationally, and has received special attention surrounding the World Habitats Award, who additionally published a document about why Augustenborg deserves the prize (WorldHeritageAward_01). They included an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievements”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

==='''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''===

Several aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled, especially in Malmö and Sweden:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over the city (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%, for example with climate coaches inspiring residents about sustainable lifestyles and technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are several other aspects that were reportedly transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world, especially regarding waste-management, car-pooling, recycling, and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

==='''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''===

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seems to be no institutionalized bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham criticizes this: the city operates mostly on a project-by-project basis and lacks shared, long-term visions of change across departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

==='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''===

Adopting a context-specific perspective of what could be done and working with residents to figure out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results than simply transferring best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

==='''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''===

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project (from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc.) collectively worked on ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were officially responsible for each issue. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Also important is to combine elements of social and physical change, which creates a reinforcing process (e.g. seeing that a neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood, one might think that they could do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2021-03-14T12:10:41Z

Jakob Kramer: /* 9. Problematization and priority: */

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]
{{toclimit|limit=2}}
== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

==='''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''===

This intervention focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, a Swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

This project initially focused on sustainable neighbourhood development with the goals of constructing an effective drainage system, energy retrofitting buildings, and supporting biodiversity efforts. Additional social, ecological, and economical topics were adopted over the course of the project.

==='''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''===

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

==='''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''===

There is a broad focus on sustainability, which includes several measures within different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small-scale wind, and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*Modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising campaigns, training programs, and agreements in rental contracts
*A wide variety of goals surrounding '''mobility''', prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport; they encouraged local use of electric vehicles and carpooling among residents, as well as the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service.
*Goals to green the area, particularly on roofs, with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity'''
*Creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70%. The capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was regularly exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
*Annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organized visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages. In some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

==='''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''===

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that promoted the image of an eco-neighbourhood that happened much later, e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg; a high-rise building with passive-house energy standards that was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as the one mentioned below). However, the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

==='''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''===

It is '''government-led''' but characterized by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members later in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

==='''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref> '''===

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability, while also considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and documentation by SMARTEES is extensive (see Question 8a). Developing a neighbourhood in a holistic, integrative way is crucial, as it aims at breaking down institutional logics and compartmentalized policymaking, leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

==='''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''===

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

==='''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''===

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, which has taken place from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

==='''9. Problematization and priority:'''===

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

The area had experienced high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems, which affects the general quality of life problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Not directly. More so in that quality of life in the area in general is quite low compared to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) and '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from flooding that could not be handled well in the past due to lack of a working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

==='''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''===

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

==='''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''===

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), and environmental health. Also noted are an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialization, etc.), a decrease of unemployment, and an increase of political participation.

==='''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
|
|
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
|
|
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
|
|
|}

==='''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''===

The role of certain enthusiastic '''individuals''' has been emphasized by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Specifically mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren and MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Particularly in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions who tried to address ALL issues in the area, caring little if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

==='''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''===

Citizen participation is key to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations, thereby having the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings, and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation during different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, proponents thought about which projects based in physical investment had the greatest scope for public involvement in terms of design and project development (which have opportunities for jobs etc.). (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance. Thus plans still had to be adapted by residents, and the focus was on creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but additional green roofs were created when the community included them in their designs for the waste-management houses (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several of their ideas were implemented into the neighbourhood, such as:
* developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children, and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

Additionally, school pupils were involved in different aspects of the project, e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project, which led to less public/neighbourhood interest (see Q.23). This made future efforts in the neighbourhood more difficult, as it hollowed out trust by residents.

==='''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''===

This project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality, who remained in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of their relationships were crucial for successfully developing and implementing interventions to positively change the district.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop several of their own ideas.

==='''16. Exclusion:'''===

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, whom the municipality tried to include them as well (see below). However, there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-Swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers had been printed in other languages and interpreters accompanied the participation processes, which helped to include non-Swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

==='''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''===

The area had high status when it was newly built (1948-1952), but started to decline in the 1970´s, when many problems, from flooding basements to high unemployment rates emerged. By the 1990´s, the neighbourhood was faced with social, ecological, and aesthetic problems that ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger was a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department of the City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time, the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company, who was the housing manager of Augustenborg, with the mission to renew the area. Together, the three contacted senior officers, colleagues, and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district in Malmö.
More than 400 people showed up at the first meeting to talk about flooding issues, the need for an adequate drainage system, green roofs, and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
Trevor Graham, a project leader with experience in transforming communities, was hired in 1998. As the project developed, local businesses, schools, and the industrial estate became a part of it.

==='''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''===

It does not seem that one general policy was critical for the project. However, Augustenborg was closely linked to developments at the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
Toward the late 90´s, a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension emerged (e.g with Agenda 21 movements). Social inclusion was thus a highly influential and popular narrative of the time.
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present in Malmö, and in Sweden in general, e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, and general economic decline. These led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''===

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology adoption through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987, updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as to reconstruction. It brings attention to climate and environmental issues and attempts to better regulate construction and give planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to ensure that all new developments are planned in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes special laws that concern changes in the physical environment and aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, and land.
Fig. 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a monopoly in generating comprehensive plans for their cities, although the Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines, e.g. for air quality.

==='''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''===

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham).
This was also connected to inclusionary practices, with the knowledge that projects are more widely accepted if developed together with residents.
A a holistic and integrative way of planning, this was demonstrated through efforts to address resident’s energy consumption behaviour rather than relying purely on technical solutions.
Inclusionary practices do result, however, in longer implementation times and changes to the original plans for the intervention.

In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralized. This allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Again, however, working in partnerships is not a very common or well-developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01

==='''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''===

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB). The rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention, as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

==='''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''===

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed, and the Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company, as well as among residents. The project was mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
Several other people in power changed over the course of the project. This led to a change of culture around responsibilities, as some of the newer people felt less responsible for a holistic change of the area and rather cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

==='''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''===

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time. Not everybody involved in the project saw the need for this engagement, and some people were actively opposed to it (e.g some of the contractors' architechts did not see the point of involving residents) (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, names continuity as the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation was easy, as there was a wide public interest in the intervention. This faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time, as there were times in which the housing company/the municipality were less active. This generated problems for the long-term belief in a process for change for local people, leading to questions like “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so”? (Interview_Trevor Graham).
Simply put, there was very high public interest in the beginning (first three - four years) but decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something greater) (Interview Trevor Graham).

In this case, efforts to include residents, even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention, led to greater public support. However there were still some instances of resistance from a few individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg, posing challenges to their inclusion. This issue was tried to be overcome by hiring interpreters and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents' issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

==='''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” by letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project when they did not feel that the institutions were equally committed. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages partly addressed trust issues between community members and the municipality and housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and interpreters were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

==='''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''===

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees, and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (Malmö’s average).
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%.
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small-scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project.
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater.
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%.
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts.
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased.

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

==='''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''===

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) .
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

==='''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''===

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. However, there are no specificities about where they got their ideas from.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shared a story from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time until he began working in recycling through an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector and is now working as a doctor again.
Another story comes from a woman who was highly opposed to the idea of recycling (and who part of the project), but then discovered the car pool and afterward became very involved in it. These interventions therefore can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

==='''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''===

Not applicable.

==='''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''===

The implementation process changed over the course of the project. As mentioned, the greatest challenge of the development project was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As central staff (along with their priorities) changed, the project lost credibility and support. The project then had to find new ways of doing things, such as giving residents more decision-making power and making them responsible for certain parts of the project. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they planned, but the new ways can be interesting and much more diverse as a result.

==='''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''===

n/a

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

==='''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''===

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of replicability or transferability. Rather, single elements (e.g energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognized by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010,” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability).
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods, saying that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö, Sweden, and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organization of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden, as well as the "world's first electric road train" (a zero emission electric street train service), could both be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Particular focus in areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in Sweden these are mostly areas of the “Million Home Program”) and 70´s buildings, and especially in northern European areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The World Habitats Award, Project Manager Trevor Graham

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment), which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was not there (Interview Trevor Graham). At one point, for example, the local housing company in Rosengard informed residents about project plans through information screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings. These are important platforms at which long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned, relationships can be established, etc. .

When transferring physical changes of a project, it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that both institutions and local people are willing to change the area in the short-term while investing resources over a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking joint long-term approaches and shared visions of change, and are rather operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is connected to political issues that make such joint ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). Therefore, learning in general is hindered and leads to repeating the same mistakes in other projects. This is visible through the fragmented way of engaging with communities, where each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city level, these units can be brought together through an intermediary organization connecting neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalized way of organized learning on an individual level as well, and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires strong communication skills and an existing network with businesses, city departments, and in local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working as these intermediaries. (Interview Trevor Graham)

==='''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref> '''===

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project in its different aspects.
In particular, the section titled “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas, and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part described in Q. 17 about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). Over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general, the intervention is well recognized (inter)-nationally, and has received special attention surrounding the World Habitats Award, who additionally published a document about why Augustenborg deserves the prize (WorldHeritageAward_01). They included an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievements”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

==='''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''===

Several aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled, especially in Malmö and Sweden:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over the city (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%, for example with climate coaches inspiring residents about sustainable lifestyles and technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are several other aspects that were reportedly transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world, especially regarding waste-management, car-pooling, recycling, and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

==='''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''===

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seems to be no institutionalized bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham criticizes this: the city operates mostly on a project-by-project basis and lacks shared, long-term visions of change across departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

==='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''===

Adopting a context-specific perspective of what could be done and working with residents to figure out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results than simply transferring best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

==='''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''===

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project (from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc.) collectively worked on ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were officially responsible for each issue. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Also important is to combine elements of social and physical change, which creates a reinforcing process (e.g. seeing that a neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood, one might think that they could do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-01-18T10:35:25Z

Jakob Kramer:

Across Europe there is an inspiring array of experimentation with local governance arrangements for just and sustainable cities.

What is '''governance'''? It can be broadly understood as all formal and informal political processes (involving state and non-state actors) that lead to collective action.

On this database, you will find the summaries of results of a study on fruitful governance interventions for sustainable and just cities.

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in the following sections, and you can share your suggestions with us via email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]]. If you haven't already, please feel free to join the [[UrbanA Community of Practice]].

<span style="color: red;"> '''DISCLAIMER: This page is currently under review! More detail to follow shortly.'''</span>

== Enabling governance arrangements ==

Enabling governance arrangements are combinations of actor constellations and institutional settings that have proven a potential to support urban governance towards just and sustainable cities in several cases of real-world Governance Interventions.

Looking at a selection of eleven situated governance interventions for sustainable and just cities (as summarized in our scenarios), we asked:

''What key elements of governance arrangements enabled those interventions to come to fruition?''

You can find background information on eleven original, real-world governance interventions, our empirical basis, in our database of rich descriptions (for more information, please refer to the section methodology).

You will see references to these interventions in the form of brief examples to illustrate each enabling governance arrangement. The question numbers accompanying the examples, like ''“(Q18)”'', will lead you to the pertinent section of the respective description of a real world governance intervention.

We assume that the enabling governance arrangements were aimed at sustainable and just outcomes, which makes it likely that they can be useful for interventions with similar goals in other instances as well. However, we do not claim that these enabling arrangements are the sole factors for bringing interventions to fruition, as the latter will always be embedded in local contexts with place-based factors being important as well.

When clicking on one of the enabling governance arrangement A) - D) below, you will learn about the ambition this each enabling governance arrangement as well as about the scenarios and detailed descriptions of governance experiments it relates.

[[1) Create a comprehensive vision of change]]

[[2) Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]

[[3) Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups]]

[[4) Commit to a meaningful participation process]]

[[5) Tap into existing community networks]]

[[6) Develop resilient, and self-sufficient financing arrangements]]

Which further enabling governance arrangement do you consider crucial on the way towards governance for sustainability AND justice in cities?

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected eleven real-word experiments (mostly within EU-funded projects) and developed '''detailed descriptions''' which detail their governance variables and processes. We have also created a brief '''governance scenario''' per case studied. These scenarios share general insights in a narrative style, and we hope that they pique your interest and provide inspiration about what could be possible in your city!

We stress that the interventions presented below (the detailed descriptions and the corresponding scenarios) - '''are not exemplary “successful interventions”'''. Rather, they are regarded as '''general inspiration''' and real-world cases for testing out how to enable translocal learning.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Detailed governance intervention descriptions
! Brief governance scenarios
|-
| 1.[[Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome]]
| 1.[[Countering Gentrification: Community Based and Collaborative Methods]]
|-
| 2.[[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin]]
| 2.[[Tackling Waste: Community Practices for Food Rescuing and Sharing]]
|-
| 3.[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
| 3.[[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]]
|-
| 4.[[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
| 4.[[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]]
|-
| 5.[[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
| 5.[[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]]
|-
| 6.[[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
| 6.[[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]
|-
| 7.[[Inner-city community energy in London]]
| 7.[[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]
|-
| 8.[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
| 8.[[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]
|-
| 9.[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
| 9.[[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]]
|-
| 10.[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
| 10.[[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]]
|}

'''Example of a partially successful governance intervention'''

In addition to our 10 fruitful governance interventions for sustainability and justice in cities (see above), we developed a [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens| rich description]] and a [[ Bringing sustainable infrastructure - carefully engaging in public-private partnerships|scenario]] of a governance intervention that demonstrates possible pitfalls when developing sustainable infrastructure in a public-private partnership. This intervention extracted from a south-eastern European setting outlines the partial success of governance interventions and encourages caution about the externalities of public-private partnerships, especially in the context of austerity that may increase in the post-COVID era.

Template for developing further descriptions: [[Rich description template]]

== Methodology ==

''(Coming soon)''

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-14T10:26:47Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|real world case]].

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient against climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable, holistic neighbourhoods is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. ‘Breaking down silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality work together and with different local stakeholders for comprehensive sustainability projects and taking a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) into consideration at once. Additional change is needed in how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation, where there is an already an urge for something to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can apply to neighbourhoods with diverse issues, such as high rates of unemployment, low involvement in politics, or even something really specific like susceptibility to flooding. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools, and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented and could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents and incorporate their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel they are integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to proposed ideas. Still, organizing workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.
This project focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme including various social, ecological, and economical interventions in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, Sweden.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[2) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-14T10:26:25Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|real world case]].

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient against climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable, holistic neighbourhoods is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. ‘Breaking down silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality work together and with different local stakeholders for comprehensive sustainability projects and taking a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) into consideration at once. Additional change is needed in how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation, where there is an already an urge for something to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can apply to neighbourhoods with diverse issues, such as high rates of unemployment, low involvement in politics, or even something really specific like susceptibility to flooding. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools, and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented and could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents and incorporate their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel they are integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to proposed ideas. Still, organizing workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.
This project focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme including various social, ecological, and economical regeneration plans for the Augustenborg district in Malmö, Sweden.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[2) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-14T10:25:50Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|real world case]].

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient against climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable, holistic neighbourhoods is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. ‘Breaking down silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality work together and with different local stakeholders for comprehensive sustainability projects and taking a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) into consideration at once. Additional change is needed in how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation, where there is an already an urge for something to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can apply to neighbourhoods with diverse issues, such as high rates of unemployment, low involvement in politics, or even something really specific like susceptibility to flooding. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools, and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented and could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents and incorporate their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel they are integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to proposed ideas. Still, organizing workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.
This project focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, Sweden including various social, ecological, and economical regeneration plans for the area.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[2) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2021-01-14T10:24:49Z

Jakob Kramer: /* a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention */

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]

== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

'''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''

This intervention focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in the Augustenborg district in Malmö, a Swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

This project initially focused on sustainable neighbourhood development with the goals of constructing an effective drainage system, energy retrofitting buildings, and supporting biodiversity efforts. Additional social, ecological, and economical topics were adopted over the course of the project.

'''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

'''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''

There is a broad focus on sustainability, which includes several measures within different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small-scale wind, and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*Modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising campaigns, training programs, and agreements in rental contracts
*A wide variety of goals surrounding '''mobility''', prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport; they encouraged local use of electric vehicles and carpooling among residents, as well as the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service.
*Goals to green the area, particularly on roofs, with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity'''
*Creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70%. The capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was regularly exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
*Annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organized visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages. In some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

'''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that promoted the image of an eco-neighbourhood that happened much later, e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg; a high-rise building with passive-house energy standards that was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as the one mentioned below). However, the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

'''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''

It is '''government-led''' but characterized by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members later in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

'''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref>

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability, while also considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and documentation by SMARTEES is extensive (see Question 8a). Developing a neighbourhood in a holistic, integrative way is crucial, as it aims at breaking down institutional logics and compartmentalized policymaking, leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

'''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

'''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, which has taken place from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

'''9. Problematization and priority:'''

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

The area had experienced high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems, which affects the general quality of life problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Not directly. More so in that quality of life in the area in general is quite low compared to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) and '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from flooding that could not be handled well in the past due to lack of a working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

'''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

'''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), and environmental health. Also noted are an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialization, etc.), a decrease of unemployment, and an increase of political participation.

'''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
|
|
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
|
|
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
|
|
|}

'''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''

The role of certain enthusiastic '''individuals''' has been emphasized by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Specifically mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren at MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Particularly in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions who tried to address ALL issues in the area, caring little if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

'''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''

Citizen participation is key to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations, thereby having the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings, and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation during different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, proponents thought about which projects based in physical investment had the greatest scope for public involvement in terms of design and project development (which have opportunities for jobs etc.). (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance. Thus plans still had to be adapted by residents, and the focus was on creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but additional green roofs were created when the community included them in their designs for the waste-management houses (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several of their ideas were implemented into the neighbourhood, such as:
* developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children, and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

Additionally, school pupils were involved in different aspects of the project, e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project, which led to less public/neighbourhood interest (see Q.23). This made future efforts in the neighbourhood more difficult, as it hollowed out trust by residents.

'''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''

This project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality, who remained in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of their relationships were crucial for successfully developing and implementing interventions to positively change the district.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop several of their own ideas.

'''16. Exclusion:'''

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, whom the municipality tried to include them as well (see below). However, there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-Swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers had been printed in other languages and interpreters accompanied the participation processes, which helped to include non-Swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

'''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''

The area had high status when it was newly built (1948-1952), but started to decline in the 1970´s, when many problems, from flooding basements to high unemployment rates emerged. By the 1990´s, the neighbourhood was faced with social, ecological, and aesthetic problems that ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger was a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department of the City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time, the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company, who was the housing manager of Augustenborg, with the mission to renew the area. Together, the three contacted senior officers, colleagues, and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district in Malmö.
More than 400 people showed up at the first meeting to talk about flooding issues, the need for an adequate drainage system, green roofs, and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
Trevor Graham, a project leader with experience in transforming communities, was hired in 1998. As the project developed, local businesses, schools, and the industrial estate became a part of it.

'''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''

It does not seem that one general policy was critical for the project. However, Augustenborg was closely linked to developments at the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
Toward the late 90´s, a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension emerged (e.g with Agenda 21 movements). Social inclusion was thus a highly influential and popular narrative of the time.
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present in Malmö, and in Sweden in general, e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, and general economic decline. These led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology adoption through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987, updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as to reconstruction. It brings attention to climate and environmental issues and attempts to better regulate construction and give planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to ensure that all new developments are planned in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes special laws that concern changes in the physical environment and aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, and land.
Fig. 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a monopoly in generating comprehensive plans for their cities, although the Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines, e.g. for air quality.

'''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham).
This was also connected to inclusionary practices, with the knowledge that projects are more widely accepted if developed together with residents.
A a holistic and integrative way of planning, this was demonstrated through efforts to address resident’s energy consumption behaviour rather than relying purely on technical solutions.
Inclusionary practices do result, however, in longer implementation times and changes to the original plans for the intervention.

In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralized. This allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Again, however, working in partnerships is not a very common or well-developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01

'''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB). The rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention, as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

'''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed, and the Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company, as well as among residents. The project was mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
Several other people in power changed over the course of the project. This led to a change of culture around responsibilities, as some of the newer people felt less responsible for a holistic change of the area and rather cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

'''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time. Not everybody involved in the project saw the need for this engagement, and some people were actively opposed to it (e.g some of the contractors' architechts did not see the point of involving residents) (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, names continuity as the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation was easy, as there was a wide public interest in the intervention. This faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time, as there were times in which the housing company/the municipality were less active. This generated problems for the long-term belief in a process for change for local people, leading to questions like “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so”? (Interview_Trevor Graham).
Simply put, there was very high public interest in the beginning (first three - four years) but decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something greater) (Interview Trevor Graham).

In this case, efforts to include residents, even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention, led to greater public support. However there were still some instances of resistance from a few individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg, posing challenges to their inclusion. This issue was tried to be overcome by hiring interpreters and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents' issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

'''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” by letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project when they did not feel that the institutions were equally committed. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages partly addressed trust issues between community members and the municipality and housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and interpreters were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

'''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees, and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (Malmö’s average).
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%.
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small-scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project.
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater.
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%.
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts.
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased.

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

'''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) .
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

'''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. However, there are no specificities about where they got their ideas from.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shared a story from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time until he began working in recycling through an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector and is now working as a doctor again.
Another story comes from a woman who was highly opposed to the idea of recycling (and who part of the project), but then discovered the car pool and afterward became very involved in it. These interventions therefore can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

'''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''

Not applicable.

'''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''

The implementation process changed over the course of the project. As mentioned, the greatest challenge of the development project was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As central staff (along with their priorities) changed, the project lost credibility and support. The project then had to find new ways of doing things, such as giving residents more decision-making power and making them responsible for certain parts of the project. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they planned, but the new ways can be interesting and much more diverse as a result.

'''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''

n/a

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

'''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of replicability or transferability. Rather, single elements (e.g energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognized by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010,” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability).
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods, saying that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö, Sweden, and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organization of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden, as well as the "world's first electric road train" (a zero emission electric street train service), could both be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Particular focus in areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in Sweden these are mostly areas of the “Million Home Program”) and 70´s buildings, and especially in northern European areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The World Habitats Award, Project Manager Trevor Graham

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment), which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was not there (Interview Trevor Graham). At one point, for example, the local housing company in Rosengard informed residents about project plans through information screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings. These are important platforms at which long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned, relationships can be established, etc. .

When transferring physical changes of a project, it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that both institutions and local people are willing to change the area in the short-term while investing resources over a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking joint long-term approaches and shared visions of change, and are rather operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is connected to political issues that make such joint ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). Therefore, learning in general is hindered and leads to repeating the same mistakes in other projects. This is visible through the fragmented way of engaging with communities, where each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city level, these units can be brought together through an intermediary organization connecting neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalized way of organized learning on an individual level as well, and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires strong communication skills and an existing network with businesses, city departments, and in local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working as these intermediaries. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref>

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project in its different aspects.
In particular, the section titled “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas, and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part described in Q. 17 about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). Over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general, the intervention is well recognized (inter)-nationally, and has received special attention surrounding the World Habitats Award, who additionally published a document about why Augustenborg deserves the prize (WorldHeritageAward_01). They included an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievements”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

'''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''

Several aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled, especially in Malmö and Sweden:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over the city (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%, for example with climate coaches inspiring residents about sustainable lifestyles and technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are several other aspects that were reportedly transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world, especially regarding waste-management, car-pooling, recycling, and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

'''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seems to be no institutionalized bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham criticizes this: the city operates mostly on a project-by-project basis and lacks shared, long-term visions of change across departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

'''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''

Adopting a context-specific perspective of what could be done and working with residents to figure out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results than simply transferring best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

'''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project (from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc.) collectively worked on ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were officially responsible for each issue. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Also important is to combine elements of social and physical change, which creates a reinforcing process (e.g. seeing that a neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood, one might think that they could do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-14T10:21:04Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona|real world case]].

[[File:Superblock picture.jpg | 500px]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction; they are urban hotspots!'''

'''How can we get there?'''

Reaching this reality would mean largely rethinking our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominant mode of transport, which leads to air and noise pollution, accelerates climate change, and makes urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution, and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they once had (Q9). Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weakened civil society, such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

'''How could a municipality address these problems? Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?'''

A complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders, be it local businesses, NGOs, and academia (Q12), but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13). Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalized local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

'''In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?'''

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of the problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organized (Q24).

'''Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?'''

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly, can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, more general flexibility in how the project develops could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.
The Superblocks Programme in Barcelona is a mobility concept that tries to restructure the city in 503 so-called Superblocks, lowering the amount of cars and returning public functions such as leisure and neighborhood activities to city streets.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[1) Create a comprehensive vision of change|Create a comprehensive vision of change]]: When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies creating synergies and giving the city a vision for comprehensive change, whereas Superblocks are one of the many means of reaching that change.

*[[4) Commit to a meaningful participation process|Commit to a meaningful participation process]]: While establishing "Superblocks", the municipality of Barcelona developed a standard procedure for participation in each block. While the original participation process overlooked realities of citizens, over the course of the project, this procedure became increasingly open, putting responsibilities and decisions into the hand of formalised local working groups consisting of diverse local stakeholders.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-14T10:20:48Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona|real world case]].

[[File:Superblock picture.jpg | 500px]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction; they are urban hotspots!'''

'''How can we get there?'''

Reaching this reality would mean largely rethinking our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominant mode of transport, which leads to air and noise pollution, accelerates climate change, and makes urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution, and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they once had (Q9). Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weakened civil society, such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

'''How could a municipality address these problems? Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?'''

A complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders, be it local businesses, NGOs, and academia (Q12), but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13). Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalized local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

'''In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?'''

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of the problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organized (Q24).

'''Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?'''

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly, can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, more general flexibility in how the project develops could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.
The Superblocks Programme in Barcelona is a mobility concept that tries to restructure the city in 503 so-called Superblocks, lowering the amount of cars and returning public functions such as leisure and neighborhood activities to city streets.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

**[[1) Create a comprehensive vision of change|Create a comprehensive vision of change]]: When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies creating synergies and giving the city a vision for comprehensive change, whereas Superblocks are one of the many means of reaching that change.

*[[4) Commit to a meaningful participation process|Commit to a meaningful participation process]]: While establishing "Superblocks", the municipality of Barcelona developed a standard procedure for participation in each block. While the original participation process overlooked realities of citizens, over the course of the project, this procedure became increasingly open, putting responsibilities and decisions into the hand of formalised local working groups consisting of diverse local stakeholders.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-14T10:19:44Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona|real world case]].

[[File:Superblock picture.jpg | 500px]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction; they are urban hotspots!'''

'''How can we get there?'''

Reaching this reality would mean largely rethinking our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominant mode of transport, which leads to air and noise pollution, accelerates climate change, and makes urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution, and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they once had (Q9). Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weakened civil society, such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

'''How could a municipality address these problems? Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?'''

A complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders, be it local businesses, NGOs, and academia (Q12), but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13). Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalized local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

'''In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?'''

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of the problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organized (Q24).

'''Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?'''

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly, can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, more general flexibility in how the project develops could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.
The Superblocks Programme in Barcelona is a mobility concept that tries to restructure the city in 503 so-called Superblocks, lowering the amount of cars and returning public functions such as leisure and neighborhood activities to city streets.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

**[[1) Create a comprehensive vision of change|Create a comprehensive vision of change]]: When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies creating synergies and giving the city a vision for comprehensive change, whereas Superblocks are one of the many means of reaching that change.

*[[4) Commit to a meaningful participation process|Commit to a meaningful participation process]]: While establishing "Superblocks", the municipality of Barcelona developed a standard procedure for participation in each block. While the original participation process overlooked realities of citizens, over the course of the project, this procedure became increasingly open putting responsibilities and decisions into the hand of formalised local working groups consisting of diverse local stakeholders.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy

2021-01-11T13:36:50Z

Jakob Kramer: /* 25. What are the reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc. */

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]]

==a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention==

===='''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (a neighborhood in the capital city)”]'''====

The intervention is called BürgerEnergie Berlin (BEB). It is a cooperative that unites citizens in Berlin - the capital and a city-state of Germany - to work together for a sustainable, climate-friendly, and citizen-owned energy system. The intervention is based at the city level.

===='''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''====

Energy

===='''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''====

BEB aims to acquire a share in the energy grid of Berlin and change the energy mix towards renewable energy. It intends to promote and support members economically and build a socially and environmentally compatible, decentralized, inexpensive, and nuclear-free sustainable energy system.
BEB advocates for a climate-friendly, democratic, and solitary energy supply, and the necessary energy policy to promote this, in Berlin. Focus areas include green electricity, energy-saving, citizen power plants, and the Berlin power grid purchase.

In an interview, a BEB member stated,
''“One of our major aims has been to bring back the Grid in public ownership with the participation of a cooperative which is us. This is a tool to reach our overarching objective of having a sustainable and fair energy system in Berlin. We have approached this by putting a bid for the license of the grid”''.

===='''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''====

BEB was founded in December 2011 and is registered in Berlin's cooperative register of the district court under the number GnR 734. It formally started its groundwork in 2012. BEB is still fighting against a concession to Vattenfall, and is working toward buying a share in the future concessions.

===='''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''====

BEB could be categorized as a voluntary governance system - commitment or action beyond legal requirements is undertaken by private actors or non-governmental organizations (TESS 4, pg. 25).

===='''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref>'''====

This is an interesting case in which citizens are empowered to be better providers of public services, i.e. providing renewable energy services at fair prices.
The intervention is a citizen-based initiative that recommends a hybrid system of governance, where citizens have equal voice and a significant share in profit.

===='''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''====

TESS Project:
*Deliverable 3.2: Analysis of success factors - summary reports on case study findings.
*Booklet - Community Climate Action across Europe.

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

===='''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''====

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

BEB has been studied by a European project called Towards European Societal Sustainability (TESS). TESS was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant number 603705 from 2013 to 2016. The project explored the role of community-based initiatives (CBIs) in transitioning to a sustainable and low-carbon Europe.

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Civil disobedience and Energy & Mobility

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''

Yes

===='''9. Problematization and priority:'''====

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

Privatization of energy markets, monopoly of a few private organizations over Berlin’s energy grid, and consequent unfair electricity prices in the city are challenged by this intervention, which brings instead an alternative democratic, citizen-centered, and decentralized energy governance system (TESS 4).

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Yes, an explicit motivation of this intervention is to pursue justice by offering fair tariffs and distributing profits among communities, rather than profits centered in one big company.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

===='''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''====

This initiative was started in 2011 by a group of active citizens who sought to bring the energy grid under the management of the people, with a particular focus on the need for to transition to renewable sources of energy (BEB). BEB is still fighting against a concession to Vattenfall, and is working toward buying a share in the future concessions (TESS 4, pg. 15).

===='''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''====

Cooperative members are the immediate beneficiaries, whereas wider beneficiaries from fair electricity prices and green energy could include the citizens of Berlin.

===='''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''====

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
| Yes
| Students of the field of renewable energy as volunteers in their free time
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| Yes
|
|-
| Social movements
| Yes
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
| Yes
| NetzGipfel
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
| Yes
| Naturstrom, EMobility, EWS Schönau
|-
| For profit entreprises
| Yes
| Supermarkets, StadtwerkeSchwäbisch-Hall
|-
| Local/regional government
| Yes
| Local Municipality
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| Yes
| Volunteers, shareholders, and local citizens as part of campaigns
|}

===='''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''====

BEB has a large number of alliances including cooperatives, ethical banks, and renewable energy companies. The cooperative expanded quickly in numbers and donations through synergies with the networks established by other energy cooperatives and movements in the field of energy and politics. Schönau Cooperative has been instrumental in the success of BEB by passing on knowledge and expertise. In order to reach out to people and inform them about the cooperative, they worked together with a media network summit called “NetzGipfel” and took part in demonstrations and other events to inform people about their initiative and thus recruit more participants (TESS 4, pg. 113). BEB would not have been able to establish itself nor grow the way it did without the contribution of volunteers. Most of them are students, mainly graduates from the field of renewable energies, but there are also retired people who want to use their free time to help the cooperative.
According to an interviewee working at BEB as a volunteer,
''“Among the most important factors for the cooperative being alive and working to realize its goals is that we have a lot of people as volunteers giving their time and putting in their efforts for instance, myself and other team members, although, their duties are being managed paid positions - two general managers – in BEB. The two general managers are essentially doing what needs to be done from coordinating all the activities to implementing new ideas and doing all the nitty gritty and everything. However, that wouldn’t have been possible without the larger membership base that is gradually increasing”''.

===='''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''====

Citizens have been the founders and drivers. The BEB works on the notion of democratic participation. Any citizen, including citizens from other parts of Germany and even other countries in the EU, could be the members of BEB with amounts starting at 100 euros (TESS 4, pg.17)

===='''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''====

BEB has a pyramid structure with only a few people on the top, consisting of founders and highly engaged people, and a broad base of members involved in the daily work. It has groups of volunteers and general assemblies, allowing for the participation of all members. However, it also has some key individuals who are driving the evolution of the organization through careful planning and more strategic actions.
Every member of the cooperative has votes for different levels of decision-making, depending on the number of shares purchased. BEB’s cooperative's supervisory board is democratically elected and decides on the use of profits, how to deal with losses, and general trend-setting decisions about BEB that are made at the general assembly (TESS 5, pg. 31).

===='''16. Exclusion:'''====

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Non-German speakers and those who cannot buy the 5 shares necessary (each cost 100 Euros) to be part of BEB’s decision-making process (TESS 5, pg.25).
BEB members who have financially contributed to the project by purchasing a minimum share of 500€ are more influential. The members who cannot afford that cost are excluded from certain decisions (TESS 5, pg. 31).

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

The cooperative is German-based and therefore operates in German.
Regarding the financial matter, it highly depends on its members’ ability to buy shares in the Berlin energy grid. As a result, members with greater financial contributions have a greater say in decision making.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

===='''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''====

BEB was driven by civil discontent and frustration with a profit-oriented company - Vattenfall - owning the energy grid in Berlin.
Over the past decades, the governance of electricity grids in German municipalities has been shaped by liberalization processes. In the 1990s, Berlin took a leading role in the privatization of public assets due to the city’s financial crisis post-reunification. The city failed to install appropriate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for the emerging hybrid service provision systems. This resulted in poor performance on regional innovation and environmental modernization, along with limited economic benefits for the city. Consequently, growing discontent with private utility ownership and an increase in awareness of the potential financial benefits from grid operations have given rise to a resurgence of ideas around community management.
One of the principal actors in the resurgence was a roundtable organization that campaigned the city government to regain control of the power grid and create a municipal power utility. This began in 2010.

===='''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''====

BEB started in response to a change in the allocation procedure in the Berlin power system, which opened the possibility of buying and operating the Berlin energy grid. BEB benefited from Energietisch (a plebiscite held in 2013 voted in favor of remunicipalisation (83%) but missed the threshold of total numbers in favor), and the new allocation procedure for the Berlin power system (Strombetriebskonzession – current operating license). It took advantage of the window of opportunity, challenging single dichotomies of public versus private management by introducing a citizen-owned management partner (TESS 4, pg. 15).
Other policies shaping the intervention include the German Feed and Tariff Program (2000), which sought to achieve renewable energy goals of 40-45% by 2025 and 55-60% by 2035. This was followed by the EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009 that sets rules for its member countries to achieve 20% of renewable energy by 2020 (TESS 4, pg. 32).

===='''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens, etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''====

The initiative has been founded on the basis of the right to hold a plebiscite/referendum and the constitutional right to freedom of assembly (Art. 8) and association (Atr. 9). Moreover, BEB was launched to strengthen democratic participation and achieve a more progressive climate policy (TESS 5, Pg. 31). Other constitutional rights (given by the Federal Republic of Germany) include:
*Art. 8 freedom of assembly
*Art. 9 freedom of association
*Art. 5 Freedom of arts, expressions, and sciences
*Art. 42 The Bundestag - Public sitting (majority decisions)
*Art. 72 Division of powers between federation and Landers
*Art. 104 Apportionment of expenditure - financial system - Liability
*Art. 28 Land Constitution - Autonomy of Municipalities

===='''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policymakers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation, etc.)'''====

BEB is an initiative attempting to decentralize the hierarchic and monopolized energy market in Berlin. It is mainly the result of public distrust in private and government institutions and the realization of their responsibility and competency to provide themselves the basic services in a more efficient, effective, inclusive, and sustainable way.
However, given the current political system, BEB’s success is highly dependent on political decisions that take a long time to come along and is well-connected to formal political parties and actors. Therefore, it works extensively on making and maintaining contacts with public figures. Furthermore, the cooperative is perceived as a space for political training where people can meet and deliberate. In their attempts to buy the energy grid of Berlin, BEB cooperates with the city government and needs the collaboration of local officials (TESS 5, pg.17).

===='''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''====

BEB mainly depends on corporate members’ shares and trust funds for raising money to purchase a 25% share of Berlin’s electricity grid. Funding from sponsorships and donations are used for the awareness-raising campaigns (e.g. zuvielKohle) that are run by the cooperative (TESS 4, pg. 46).

===='''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''====

Awareness-raising campaigns have successfully reached a number of citizens and positively impacted the intervention with a large increase in volunteers and members. These campaigns focused mostly on the importance of safe, green, and democratically managed energy utility.

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

===='''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''====

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

Legal arrangements related to bidding procedures are complex and time-intensive. For instance, Vattenfall is currently taking legal measures against the preliminary operator of the grid "Landesbetrieb Berlin Energie" (who won the procurement procedure in 2019), but legally can only start operating when Vattenfall´s legal measures are overcome. An interviewee representing BEB said,
''“One of the barriers to the goals we have is the national regulation for grid ownership. The legal system doesn’t favor easy changes in the grid concession, especially if you are a newcomer it is very difficult to get into this area because you have to fulfill a lot of requirements which is a good thing actually because it is a very important public infrastructure consequently, it is important that one is highly capable of delivering a safe and secure energy supply”''.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The flow of information and transparency have also been flagged as shortcomings.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Another barrier stated by an interviewee with a BEB member is the lack of public attention. The interviewee said that it had been a long time since they started as a cooperative in 2011 (officially started in 2012 and handed in the bid for the concession in 2016), and the senate in Berlin is still making a decision on who gets the concession for the grid. Many people in the public may have forgotten or are unfamiliar with this initiative, as it has not recently been in the public view or media attention.

*'''d. Finances'''

*Arranging funds to obtain 25% of the Berlin power grid. BEB is highly dependent on membership fees (or 100 euro) due to its legal restrictions to harness project funding for being a cooperative.
*Vagueness of the act for the economy of energy (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz) costs money (lawyer’s consultancy) and time.
*Vattenfall has been proposing numbers concerning the value of the grid that was not reasonable (TESS 4, pg.17).

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

*The resistance against remunicipalisation is strong; companies and the Federal Cartel Agency question the suitability of citizens and cities as service operators and want to protect the current market structure
*Given most of the members work on a voluntary basis, BEB cannot be as professional as it could be due to the constant change of people. One of the board members states she has a lot of control over the cooperative, although the supervisory committee also plays a central role in management.
*Dependence of BEB’s success on political will. One interviewed politician says, “It could be too much money and work for them to handle” (TESS 5, pg. 25).
In an interview, a BEB representative stated:
''“The political will is another barrier even though it is mentioned in the coalition agreement between the currently governing parties in Berlin that the cooperative ownership in the public grid is wanted. Politicians tend to forget this over time. Well, we are not in the spotlight of attention anymore and we have to remind them, especially if there is a legal procedure which is going on pushed by Vattenfall against the governments’ decision on giving grid concession to a public entity”''.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

===='''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1.Lack of required finance
| Run awareness campaigns to attract financial donations and membership share through the media. In an interview (Sep 9, 2020) a BEB representative illustrated that the cooperative uses 50% of the money from the membership shares to provide a financial base for the implementation of a project.
|-
| 2.Data security issue
| Ensured safety of data by changing BEB website’s security standards.
|-
| 3.Legitimacy/Transparency concern
| Flow of information and transparency matters have been addressed by issuing an internal newsletter.
|-
| 4.Resistance against the initiative by Vattenfall
| BEB is reaching enough people to influence political decisions and to strengthen its stand.
|-
| 5. Regulatory challenges
| Are being dealt with by the members of BEB with great patience and a significant amount of economic, time, and energy resource investment (TESS 5, pg. 25).
In an interview a BEB interviewee emphasized,
''“we demand better conditions in terms of better regulations and more favorable policies that would allow us to do certain things not only us but in general civil society and citizens to get directly engaged for example in electricity production from solar PV. We try to campaign for that, we try and propose what is possible and we do it regardless of the legal system which is our identity as a cooperative to do it anyway. if the state doesn’t provide us with the rights and enabling conditions we try to generate them ourselves. But this is really difficult in the energy area because it is strongly regulated in an Urban context where you have to deal with a lot of actors and lot of regulations and it is quite complex”.''

|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

===='''25. What are the reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''====

BEB has not reached its goal of purchasing the Berlin energy grid yet, but its success could be measured in terms of its campaigns work, and in sparking important discussion on public participation in decisions concerning energy infrastructure.
Below are some achievements of the milestones accomplished by BEB:
*Collection of 11 million Euros in 2015 (100 million Euros is the target) to buy 25% of the energy grid.
*Increases in the rate of membership (and therefore funding), campaign sponsorships, a number of volunteers, and media attention are the biggest achievements of BE.
*Success in the future would mean being a shareholder or cooperation partner of a renewable-focused energy grid in Berlin (TESS 5, pg. 16). In 2019, the "Landesbetrieb Berlin Energie" won the procurement procedure, an important victory on the path to remunicipalization.
After an interview with a BEB member, it has been found that the BEB has not been selected for the grid concession, which was one of their goals. The government has made the decision to give the license to a city-owned public utility. But the decision is not yet final as Vattenfall, the current grid operating company, has filed a lawsuit against the government’s decision. BEB, however, supports the government decision, the BEB representative said,
''“The government has made a great decision. It is also part of our campaign. We have to reinvent ourselves a little bit because our overarching goal is not only operating and having a grid concession but also contributing to a sustainable energy system in Berlin. So we have started implementing for example solar power projects and there we have a completely different set of barriers. Having an overarching goal, a vision, and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because over time (that is my personal feeling) the circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly think if our vision is still relevant and up to date, do we need to adapt, and can we carry on”.''

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

===='''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''====

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

No

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

The intervention is building upon previous experience from the town of Schönau, though it from a different context: Schönau is a small town whereas Berlin is a city state. In an interview, a BEB member highlighted that Schönau EVS had provided great support. He further elaborated ''“…. Schönau EVS pioneers were the ones most experienced in operating the grid, campaigning against nuclear power, campaigning in favor of sustainable energy, and also successfully winning the concession of their grid. They have supported us from the beginning. They have also given guidance during the whole journey and provided resources we couldn’t have come up with ourselves. The concession of a grid is an extremely difficult matter. One has to have very very specific detailed legal knowledge which demands a lot of resources. In that sense, we have been directly supported and inspired by EVS Schonau. We have also shared learnings in a different context with people working on a similar initiative in Hamburg. Likewise, there are a lot of examples in Germany especially with cooperatives implementing projects for renewable energy generation and there is an active process of sharing best practices and learning so on”.''

=== Learning content ===

===='''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''====

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

N/A.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

EWS Schönau has been instrumental in the success of BEB by passing on knowledge and expertise. One of the founders of Schönau is even a board member of BEB. In order to perform outreach and recruit participants in the cooperative, BEB worked together with the media organization “NetzGipfel” (Network Summits), and participated in demonstrations and other events. A BEB representative mentioned,
''“From my own experience over the years a huge amount of interest from all kind of different actors in what BEB has been shared in forms of: participation in research projects, presenting our experiences before different groups varying from a class of school children who would like to learn about the project to a delegation from a South Korean city, civil servants visiting Berlin on a study trip to journalists, media, and so on. We are constantly in touch with the responsible people from the Berlin city administration especially in the area of energy and we also participate in civil society platforms, forums and events”.''

*'''c. from other knowledge gatherings/research'''

Not reported.

=== Learning process ===

===='''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''====

The intervention had not been replicated elsewhere yet.

===='''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''====

Not reported

===='''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''====

No learning tools documented or reported.

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

===='''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''====

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

BEB is a replication of another cooperative from the town of Schönau that successfully purchased the town’s power grid. A similar initiative has been undertaken in Hamburg. So, it can be said that the initiative is highly replicable, however, transferability/replicability has not been suggested.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Transferability in the same context has been recommended.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

Not reported.

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

Not reported

===='''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref>'''====

As part of TESS study, BEB members had been interviewed about the intervention including confronted challenges/obstacles.

===='''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''====

BEB’s goal has not yet been achieved therefore the replication of the specific intervention has not been recorded.

== j) Structural learning ==

===='''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''====

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

In response, see the statement below by an interviewee from BEB:
''"I would argue that there have been changes in terms of how the energy system can be imagined, who owns it and who participates in it. There have also been changes in political documents for example the coalition agreement in Berlin especially, there has been quite a lot of public and policy attention to citizens’ participation in the energy sector. There is legislation for tenants’ energy self-consumption models contributed by the citizen energy movement. BEB is part of that movement".''

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

===='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''====

The initiative aims to build and improve alternatives in parallel to the existing governance structure. They pose a decentralized energy system (and economy) that focuses on supply-driven-demand, not demand-driven-supply.

===='''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''====

A citizens-driven initiative based on a decentralized bottom-up governance system, standing firm to achieve envisioned goals even when things didn’t work as expected and planned.

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T15:22:51Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient against climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable, holistic neighbourhoods is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. ‘Breaking down silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality work together and with different local stakeholders for comprehensive sustainability projects and taking a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) into consideration at once. Additional change is needed in how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation, where there is an already an urge for something to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can apply to neighbourhoods with diverse issues, such as high rates of unemployment, low involvement in politics, or even something really specific like susceptibility to flooding. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools, and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented and could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents and incorporate their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel they are integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to proposed ideas. Still, organizing workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.
*[[D) Commit to a meaningful participation process|Commit to a meaningful participation process]]:

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T15:22:36Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient against climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable, holistic neighbourhoods is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. ‘Breaking down silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality work together and with different local stakeholders for comprehensive sustainability projects and taking a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) into consideration at once. Additional change is needed in how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation, where there is an already an urge for something to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can apply to neighbourhoods with diverse issues, such as high rates of unemployment, low involvement in politics, or even something really specific like susceptibility to flooding. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools, and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented and could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents and incorporate their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel they are integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to proposed ideas. Still, organizing workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable and resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.
*[[B) Commit to a meaningful participation process|Commit to a meaningful participation process]]:

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T13:08:10Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation|Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

*[[Commit to a meaningful participation process]]:

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T13:07:25Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[Make space for adaptation and experimentation'B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

*[[Commit to a meaningful participation process]]:

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T13:06:14Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*[[Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]: An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

*[[Commit to a meaningful participation process]]:

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T13:05:40Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario relates to some '''enabling governance arrangements''':

*'''Make space for adaptation and experimentation''': An experimental approach was crucial for this intervention to flourish; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project.

*'''Commit to a meaningful participation process''':

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:47:41Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-05T12:47:30Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona|case]]:

[[File:Superblock picture.jpg | 500px]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have once had (Q9).. Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

How could a municipality address these problems?. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?

It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia (Q12) but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13) . Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised (Q24).

Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

What do you think about this scenario? Was it helpful to you? Do you find our approach problematic? Send us an email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]].

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:45:18Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-05T12:44:52Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:43:48Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:43:26Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

'''And then, everything is fine?'''

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

'''Where do we go from here?'''

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:42:51Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.'''

'''How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

'''What are some key aspects for this to work? '''

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:41:57Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.

How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:41:33Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.

How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:41:21Z

Jakob Kramer:

[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg|case]]

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.

How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2021-01-05T12:40:12Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona|case]]:

[[File:Superblock picture.jpg | 500px]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have once had (Q9).. Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

How could a municipality address these problems?. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?

It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia (Q12) but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13) . Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised (Q24).

Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.
This intervention is about the municipality in Barcelona

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:37:34Z

Jakob Kramer:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.

How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:32:18Z

Jakob Kramer:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.
How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]].
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design

2021-01-05T12:32:06Z

Jakob Kramer:

[[File:Augustenborg picture.jpg |500px]]

'''Imagine a city consisting of ecologically sustainable urban neighbourhoods that are inclusive for its residents and resilient towards climate change.
How can we create these neighbourhoods?'''

Creating truly sustainable neighbourhoods from a holistic perspective is often hindered by compartmentalized administrations and specialized, inconsistent policies. The ‘breaking down of silos’ could mean, for example, that different departments of a municipality would have to work together and with different local stakeholders in creating comprehensively sustainable areas taking into consideration a variety of issues (e.g biodiversity, health, inclusivity, climate) at once. What needs to change is also how specific topics are addressed: reducing the energy consumption in a neighbourhood might not just call for the technical improvement of buildings, but may also involve dedicated campaigns for changing energy related behaviour of residents.

When pushing sustainable district and neighbourhood developments in your own city, being truly enthusiastic about the projects can be hugely important to get others on board. Individuals can play a very important role here. An area that has a bad reputation where there is an already existing urge that something has to be done might be a good area to start a sustainable neighbourhood campaign. This can for example apply to neighbourhoods that could have very diverse issues such as high rates of unemployment, low interest in politics or even something really specific like missing resilience to floods. A typical story of such a sustainable neighbourhood campaign could start with the municipality as an initiator. If this is supposed to be an integrated effort, however, the municipality would have to involve different local stakeholders, e.g the municipal housing company, local schools and most importantly local residents.

Developments that try to tackle issues in single sectors (like, mobility or energy) will most likely take a long time to be implemented which could lead to a decline in public interest over the course of the project. Shifting responsibilities and making residents more and more responsible over the duration of the project might help with such issues. If projects aim to address different justice related issues, especially procedural justice, it would be crucial to carefully design participation processes. Such projects should engage residents as well as comprehend their needs and wishes.

A sustainable neighbourhood will only exist if residents feel as integral parts of it. Trying to push best practices onto the neighbourhood will most likely not work if residents do not understand why these developments are necessary or if they are opposed to such ideas.Still, organising workshops that convey experiences from other areas might spark ideas for your own neighbourhood. As a municipality, taking up a perspective that provides guidance in what could be done to improve situations might sometimes be more feasible than telling residents what has to be done. Embracing such an open perspective as well as overcoming compartmentalized policies might be key in creating sustainable as well as resilient neighbourhoods.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Governance and participation processes]]. This approach geared toward urban sustainability emphasise defining and addressing environmental problems as well as envisioning the future of cities, mainly based on the co-production of knowledge through innovative, diverse and strategic partnerships.
*[[Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation]]. This approach refers to the effort of public institutions to engage the civil society in policy making processes.

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Material and livelihood inequalities]].
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]. .

Database of governance arrangements

2020-12-23T12:59:52Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Enabling governance arrangements */

Across Europe there is an inspiring array of experimentation with local governance arrangements for just and sustainable cities.

What is '''governance'''? It can be broadly understood as all formal and informal political processes (involving state and non-state actors) that lead to collective action.

On this database, you will find the summaries of results of a study on fruitful governance interventions for sustainable and just cities.

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in the following sections, and you can share your suggestions with us via email to [[User:Philipp Spaeth|Philipp Spaeth]]. If you haven't already, please feel free to join the [[UrbanA Community of Practice]].

<span style="color: red;"> '''DISCLAIMER: This page is currently under review! More detail to follow shortly.'''</span>

== Enabling governance arrangements ==

Enabling governance arrangements are combinations of actor constellations and institutional settings that have proven a potential to support urban governance towards just and sustainable cities in several cases of real-world (Governance Interventions)

Looking at a selection of eleven situated governance interventions for sustainable and just cities (as summarized in our scenarios), we asked:

''What key elements of governance arrangements enabled those interventions to come to fruition?''

You can find background information on eleven original, real-world governance interventions, our empirical basis, in our database of rich descriptions (for more information, please refer to the section methodology).

You will see references to these interventions in the form of brief examples to illustrate each enabling governance arrangement. The question numbers accompanying the examples, like ''“(Q18)”'', will lead you to the pertinent section of the respective description of a real world governance intervention.

We assume that the enabling governance arrangements were aimed at sustainable and just outcomes, which makes it likely that they can be useful for interventions with similar goals in other instances as well. However, we do not claim that these enabling arrangements are the sole factors for bringing interventions to fruition, as the latter will always be embedded in local contexts with place-based factors being important as well.

When clicking on one of the enabling governance arrangement A) - D) below, you will learn about the ambition this each enabling governance arrangement as well as about the scenarios and detailed descriptions of governance experiments it relates.

[[A) Create a comprehensive vision of change]]

[[B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]

[[C) Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups]]

[[D) Commit to a meaningful participation process]]

[[E) Tap into existing community networks]]

[[F) Develop resilient, and self-sufficient financing arrangements]]

Which further enabling governance arrangement do you consider crucial on the way towards governance for sustainability AND justice in cities?

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected eleven real-word experiments (mostly within EU-funded projects) and developed '''detailed descriptions''' which detail their governance variables and processes. We have also created a brief '''governance scenario''' per case studied. These scenarios share general insights in a narrative style, and we hope that they pique your interest and provide inspiration about what could be possible in your city!

We stress that the interventions presented below (the detailed descriptions and the corresponding scenarios) - '''are not exemplary “successful interventions”'''. Rather, they are regarded as '''general inspiration''' and real-world cases for testing out how to enable translocal learning.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Detailed governance intervention descriptions
! Brief governance scenarios
|-
| 1.[[Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome]]
| 1.[[Learning from successful community-based actions against gentrification]]
|-
| 2.[[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin]]
| 2.[[Expanding effective practices for food rescuing and sharing among cities]]
|-
| 3.[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
| 3.[[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]]
|-
| 4.[[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
| 4.[[Inviting citizens to a transformation of street space - flexibly dealing with resistance]]
|-
| 5.[[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
| 5.[[Negotiating green space development: balancing long-term sustainability and short-term social needs]]
|-
| 6.[[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
| 6.[[Envisioning and co-creating sustainable urban neighborhoods by reaching across institutional boundaries]]
|-
| 7.[[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens]]
| 7.[[Bringing sustainable infrastructure to all - carefully engaging in public-private partnerships]]
|-
| 8.[[Inner-city community energy in London]]
| 8.[[From electricity to empowerment, community energy growing out of the inner-city]]
|-
| 9.[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
| 9.[[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]]
|-
| 10.[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
| 10.[[Creating a sustainable energy system - a citizen-driven transformation]]
|-
| 11.[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
| 11.[[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]]
|}

Template for developing further descriptions: [[Rich description template]]

== Methodology ==

''(Coming soon)''

B) Embrace flexibility in project design and implementation

2020-12-23T12:59:17Z

Jakob Kramer: Jakob Kramer moved page B) Embrace flexibility in project design and implementation to B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation

#REDIRECT [[B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation]]

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:59:17Z

Jakob Kramer: Jakob Kramer moved page B) Embrace flexibility in project design and implementation to B) Make space for adaptation and experimentation

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
*[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Q20).
In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command. Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Q20).

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]].

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’. (Q25)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels'''

“We are constantly reflecting on things, perhaps too much! … For every part of the operation we regularly rethink how to do it. This happens at the level of the team, and also on the level of our working groups, partner associations, experts and other stakeholders, and the level of our board." (De Pauw interview) (Q26a)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:36:18Z

Jakob Kramer:

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:32:57Z

Jakob Kramer:

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:32:32Z

Jakob Kramer:

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
*[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Q20).
In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command. Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Q20).
Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]].

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’. (Q25)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels'''

“We are constantly reflecting on things, perhaps too much! … For every part of the operation we regularly rethink how to do it. This happens at the level of the team, and also on the level of our working groups, partner associations, experts and other stakeholders, and the level of our board." (De Pauw interview) (Q26a)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:32:03Z

Jakob Kramer:

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
*[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Q20).
In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command. Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Q20).
Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]].

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’. (Q25)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels'''

“We are constantly reflecting on things, perhaps too much! … For every part of the operation we regularly rethink how to do it. This happens at the level of the team, and also on the level of our working groups, partner associations, experts and other stakeholders, and the level of our board." (De Pauw interview) (Q26a)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:31:02Z

Jakob Kramer:

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
*[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Q20).
In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command. Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Q20).

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’. (Q25)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels''

“We are constantly reflecting on things, perhaps too much! … For every part of the operation we regularly rethink how to do it. This happens at the level of the team, and also on the level of our working groups, partner associations, experts and other stakeholders, and the level of our board." (De Pauw interview) (Q26a)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:29:50Z

Jakob Kramer:

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
*[[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Q20).
In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command. Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Q20).

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’. (Q25)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels''

“We are constantly reflecting on things, perhaps too much! … For every part of the operation we regularly rethink how to do it. This happens at the level of the team, and also on the level of our working groups, partner associations, experts and other stakeholders, and the level of our board." (De Pauw interview) (Q26a)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2020-12-23T12:22:26Z

Jakob Kramer:

Examples from real world governance interventions:

*[[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
*[[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]

== General ambition ==

Adaptability within initiatives for sustainable and just cities means leaving space for careful modifications and detours along their path to fulfilling overarching visions. In other words, initiatives may benefit from continuously and collectively deciding how much they are willing to adapt their plans based on new information and circumstances. Therefore, adaptability requires regular internal reflection amongst initiative proponents on shifting political, social, ecological and economic conditions, as well as on new developments and knowledge from within the project.
Openness to adaptation entails striking a balance between unresponsive devotion to pre-set agendas and a lack of persistence with decisions that have been made. A reflexive approach to adaptability can support initiatives’ efforts to remain viable, gain influence, and stick to their transformative ideas.
In many cases, a rudimentary level of adaptability is required to keep initiatives afloat amongst disadvantageous circumstances, such as the removal of important subsidies. In others, flexibility in short-term agendas may allow initiatives to take advantage of beneficial windows of opportunity. While this type of adaptability is reactive, many innovative experiences benefit from proactively adopting an experimental approach to project design and implementation. An experimental mindset uses a “probe and learn” approach and allows room for mistakes and new developments, while still working towards long-term visions. A critical mass of initiative proponents who uphold an experimental ethos will allow for more learning opportunities and creative ways to tackle seemingly unchangeable injustices and unsustainable practices.

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

Project proponents (mostly local organizations) had an overall vision of the project development but it was not set in stone. The idea was to translate an existing methodology about transition management and to make it custom fit to the local context. For instance, the creation of a community center was not planned in advance and was envisioned and initiated by local stakeholders (Q.27 & 28). The project consortium was given a “carte blanche” for developing and experimenting the Resilience Lab. Whereas most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, the freedom given to the consortium partners enabled them to progressively develop and adapt their methodology to the local context. This freedom was crucial to the success of the Reliance Lab. (Q13) The Resilience Lab - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (Q17)

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Trusting civil society and residents to co-shape regeneration projects in deprived neighborhoods]].

''' ''BürgerEnergy Berlin'', Berlin'''

BEB applied for a Berlin grid concession directly. However, the government decided to provide the license to a city-owned public utility and a court case is pending. Consequently, BEB reinvented its plans for achieving a sustainable energy system in Berlin. They have, for example, started implementing solar power projects. An interviewee representing BEB stated:
‘Having an overarching goal, a vision and being able to adapt that to the circumstances is very important because overtime ... circumstances change a lot. You have to constantly reflect whether your vision is still relevant and up to date and do we need to adapt and can we carry on’.

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Making local energy systems inclusively sustainable - by ourselves, with a little help by friends]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Adaptability in project design and implementation allows for responsiveness to changing social and economic conditions and better-positions initiatives to meet the shifting needs of those it serves. This governance arrangement attempts to address [[unfit institutional structures]]. The “unfit institutional structures” that were identified as a ‘driver of injustice’ refer to the strict top-down approaches which limit knowledge generation and exchange, and to rigid bureaucracies and regulatory barriers which often result in sustainability policies that fail to address the realities of vulnerable residents. Furthermore, experimental mindsets may allow for more innovative thinking around how to tackle injustice, based on ideas from various actors, including local residents. This could help in finding solutions which would not arise from more risk/mistake-averse approaches to project design and implementation.

== Critical reflection ==

When initiatives adapt too well to an environment that is structurally unsustainable and unjust, they risk to lose their transformative potential and integrity, e.g. as a ‘counter model’. Calls for adaptability can also help to pursue other agendas under the disguise of vague commitments to sustainability and justice. Due to flexibility in the design and implementation also unanticipated costs and challenges may incur.
It is rare that initiatives receive funding with “no-strings attached”, and instead most funded projects are predefined and have to follow a pre-established framework, consequently limiting adaptability. Therefore, funding may be contingent on measurement of progress with regards to reaching predefined goals. While stoically sticking to a preset agenda might limit creative opportunities for overcoming problems, being “too flexible” could give an impression of incompetence and disarray, therefore reducing stakeholder confidence and commitment to the project.

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

This governance arrangement is essential for initiatives operating in the context of COVID-19 – a time of great economic and social uncertainty. The global pandemic necessitates a basic level of flexibility, as adaptation of many aspects, from daily activities to long-term strategic planning, may be essential for a project’s survival. Going forward, this situation presents a strong case for “building-in” opportunities for flexibility by leaving space for contingency plans, and encourages an experimental mindset to explore new ways of flourishing under vastly different circumstances.

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-12-17T07:40:22Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world case: [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have once had (Q9).. Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

How could a municipality address these problems?. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?

It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia (Q12) but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13) . Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised (Q24).

Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.
This intervention is about the municipality in Barcelona

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-12-17T07:30:51Z

Jakob Kramer:

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world case: [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]

'''Imagine your city's streets not being dominated by cars but by people. Streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system (Q3). In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have once had (Q9).. Giving streets their old functions back also means targeting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

How could a municipality address these problems?. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include?

It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia (Q12) but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board (Q13) . Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local particularities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate (Q13, Q15). For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system (Q19). Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change (Q18). The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! (Q19) If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending (Q21).

In what ways can municipalities deal with and learn from potential local resistance?

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences (Q23). For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long (Q23). To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised (Q24).

Why should municipalities look at similar projects in the past to ensure more just participation in the future?

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here (Q27). It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned (Q27). In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future (Q28).
Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas (Q33).

'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]].
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]].
*[[Nature-based solutions]].

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2020-12-09T15:25:15Z

Jakob Kramer:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]]

== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

'''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''

This intervention focuses on the work of Ekostaden Augustenborg, a holistic neighbourhood development programme based in one neighbourhood/district in Malmö, a Swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

This project initially focused on sustainable neighbourhood development with the goals of constructing an effective drainage system, energy retrofitting buildings, and supporting biodiversity efforts. Additional social, ecological, and economical topics were adopted over the course of the project.

'''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

'''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''

There is a broad focus on sustainability, which includes several measures within different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small-scale wind, and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*Modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising campaigns, training programs, and agreements in rental contracts
*A wide variety of goals surrounding '''mobility''', prioritizing pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport; they encouraged local use of electric vehicles and carpooling among residents, as well as the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service.
*Goals to green the area, particularly on roofs, with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity'''
*Creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70%. The capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was regularly exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
*Annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organized visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages. In some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

'''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that promoted the image of an eco-neighbourhood that happened much later, e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg; a high-rise building with passive-house energy standards that was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as the one mentioned below). However, the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

'''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''

It is '''government-led''' but characterized by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members later in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

'''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref>

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability, while also considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and documentation by SMARTEES is extensive (see Question 8a). Developing a neighbourhood in a holistic, integrative way is crucial, as it aims at breaking down institutional logics and compartmentalized policymaking, leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

'''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

'''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability, which has taken place from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

'''9. Problematization and priority:'''

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''

The area had experienced high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems, which affects the general quality of life problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''

Not directly. More so in that quality of life in the area in general is quite low compared to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) and '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from flooding that could not be handled well in the past due to lack of a working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

'''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

'''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), and environmental health. Also noted are an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialization, etc.), a decrease of unemployment, and an increase of political participation.

'''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
|
|
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
|
|
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
|
|
|}

'''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''

The role of certain enthusiastic '''individuals''' has been emphasized by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Specifically mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren at MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Particularly in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions who tried to address ALL issues in the area, caring little if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

'''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''

Citizen participation is key to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations, thereby having the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings, and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation during different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, proponents thought about which projects based in physical investment had the greatest scope for public involvement in terms of design and project development (which have opportunities for jobs etc.). (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance. Thus plans still had to be adapted by residents, and the focus was on creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but additional green roofs were created when the community included them in their designs for the waste-management houses (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several of their ideas were implemented into the neighbourhood, such as:
* developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children, and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

Additionally, school pupils were involved in different aspects of the project, e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project, which led to less public/neighbourhood interest (see Q.23). This made future efforts in the neighbourhood more difficult, as it hollowed out trust by residents.

'''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''

This project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality, who remained in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of their relationships were crucial for successfully developing and implementing interventions to positively change the district.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop several of their own ideas.

'''16. Exclusion:'''

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, whom the municipality tried to include them as well (see below). However, there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-Swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers had been printed in other languages and interpreters accompanied the participation processes, which helped to include non-Swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

'''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''

The area had high status when it was newly built (1948-1952), but started to decline in the 1970´s, when many problems, from flooding basements to high unemployment rates emerged. By the 1990´s, the neighbourhood was faced with social, ecological, and aesthetic problems that ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger was a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department of the City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time, the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company, who was the housing manager of Augustenborg, with the mission to renew the area. Together, the three contacted senior officers, colleagues, and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district in Malmö.
More than 400 people showed up at the first meeting to talk about flooding issues, the need for an adequate drainage system, green roofs, and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
Trevor Graham, a project leader with experience in transforming communities, was hired in 1998. As the project developed, local businesses, schools, and the industrial estate became a part of it.

'''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''

It does not seem that one general policy was critical for the project. However, Augustenborg was closely linked to developments at the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
Toward the late 90´s, a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension emerged (e.g with Agenda 21 movements). Social inclusion was thus a highly influential and popular narrative of the time.
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present in Malmö, and in Sweden in general, e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, and general economic decline. These led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology adoption through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987, updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as to reconstruction. It brings attention to climate and environmental issues and attempts to better regulate construction and give planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to ensure that all new developments are planned in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes special laws that concern changes in the physical environment and aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, and land.
Fig. 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a monopoly in generating comprehensive plans for their cities, although the Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines, e.g. for air quality.

'''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham).
This was also connected to inclusionary practices, with the knowledge that projects are more widely accepted if developed together with residents.
A a holistic and integrative way of planning, this was demonstrated through efforts to address resident’s energy consumption behaviour rather than relying purely on technical solutions.
Inclusionary practices do result, however, in longer implementation times and changes to the original plans for the intervention.

In the beginning of the project, a lot of people shared this experimental mindset. But when certain people were no longer involved in the project (e.g due to changes in department heads) and were replaced by others without this mentality, flexibility and adaptivity started to get lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). Flexibility in project implementation thus disappeared when the critical mass of people no longer adopted a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralized. This allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development, and implementation of the project. Again, however, working in partnerships is not a very common or well-developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01

'''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB). The rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention, as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

'''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed, and the Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company, as well as among residents. The project was mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
Several other people in power changed over the course of the project. This led to a change of culture around responsibilities, as some of the newer people felt less responsible for a holistic change of the area and rather cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

'''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time. Not everybody involved in the project saw the need for this engagement, and some people were actively opposed to it (e.g some of the contractors' architechts did not see the point of involving residents) (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, names continuity as the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation was easy, as there was a wide public interest in the intervention. This faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time, as there were times in which the housing company/the municipality were less active. This generated problems for the long-term belief in a process for change for local people, leading to questions like “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so”? (Interview_Trevor Graham).
Simply put, there was very high public interest in the beginning (first three - four years) but decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something greater) (Interview Trevor Graham).

In this case, efforts to include residents, even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention, led to greater public support. However there were still some instances of resistance from a few individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg, posing challenges to their inclusion. This issue was tried to be overcome by hiring interpreters and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents' issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

'''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” by letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project when they did not feel that the institutions were equally committed. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages partly addressed trust issues between community members and the municipality and housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and interpreters were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

'''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees, and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (Malmö’s average).
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%.
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small-scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project.
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater.
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%.
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts.
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased.

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

'''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) .
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

'''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. However, there are no specificities about where they got their ideas from.

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shared a story from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time until he began working in recycling through an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector and is now working as a doctor again.
Another story comes from a woman who was highly opposed to the idea of recycling (and who part of the project), but then discovered the car pool and afterward became very involved in it. These interventions therefore can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

'''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''

Not applicable.

'''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''

The implementation process changed over the course of the project. As mentioned, the greatest challenge of the development project was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As central staff (along with their priorities) changed, the project lost credibility and support. The project then had to find new ways of doing things, such as giving residents more decision-making power and making them responsible for certain parts of the project. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they planned, but the new ways can be interesting and much more diverse as a result.

'''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''

n/a

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

'''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of replicability or transferability. Rather, single elements (e.g energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognized by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010,” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability).
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods, saying that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö, Sweden, and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organization of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden, as well as the "world's first electric road train" (a zero emission electric street train service), could both be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Particular focus in areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in Sweden these are mostly areas of the “Million Home Program”) and 70´s buildings, and especially in northern European areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The World Habitats Award, Project Manager Trevor Graham

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment), which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was not there (Interview Trevor Graham). At one point, for example, the local housing company in Rosengard informed residents about project plans through information screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings. These are important platforms at which long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned, relationships can be established, etc. .

When transferring physical changes of a project, it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that both institutions and local people are willing to change the area in the short-term while investing resources over a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking joint long-term approaches and shared visions of change, and are rather operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is connected to political issues that make such joint ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). Therefore, learning in general is hindered and leads to repeating the same mistakes in other projects. This is visible through the fragmented way of engaging with communities, where each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city level, these units can be brought together through an intermediary organization connecting neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalized way of organized learning on an individual level as well, and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires strong communication skills and an existing network with businesses, city departments, and in local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working as these intermediaries. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref>

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project in its different aspects.
In particular, the section titled “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas, and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part described in Q. 17 about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). Over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general, the intervention is well recognized (inter)-nationally, and has received special attention surrounding the World Habitats Award, who additionally published a document about why Augustenborg deserves the prize (WorldHeritageAward_01). They included an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievements”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

'''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''

Several aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled, especially in Malmö and Sweden:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over the city (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%, for example with climate coaches inspiring residents about sustainable lifestyles and technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are several other aspects that were reportedly transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world, especially regarding waste-management, car-pooling, recycling, and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

'''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seems to be no institutionalized bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham criticizes this: the city operates mostly on a project-by-project basis and lacks shared, long-term visions of change across departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

'''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''

Adopting a context-specific perspective of what could be done and working with residents to figure out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results than simply transferring best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

'''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project (from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc.) collectively worked on ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were officially responsible for each issue. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Also important is to combine elements of social and physical change, which creates a reinforcing process (e.g. seeing that a neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood, one might think that they could do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-08-17T10:14:42Z

Jakob Kramer:

'''Imagine a city where streets are not dominated by cars but by people. Where streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system. In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have had too. Giving streets their old functions back also means targetting injustices created by urban intensification and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

Now imagine a municipality that has addressed these problems. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include? It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board. Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local peculiarities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate.

For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system. Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change. The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending.

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences. For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long. To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised.

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here. It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned. In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future.

Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]. This approach cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society.
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]]. This approach refers to the right to make and remake ourselves and our cities.
*[[Nature-based solutions]]. This approach refers to solutions for urban sustainability that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]. This driver refers to unequal exposure to harmful and health-impairing pollutants,conditions and urban environments and/or unequal access to safe and healthy environments.
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. This driver refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors and how they can undermine urban sustainability, guided by an ideology of unfettered economic growth which often aligns with austerity policies.
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]] This driver refers to the ways in which (access to) useful information and know-how around sustainable urban interventions and their benefits is not shared effectively or equally among disciplines, sectors or social groups, and thus constrain the potential for both sustainability and justice.
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]] This driver refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]] This driver refers to the ways in which new urban developments might force trade-offs between the social and environmental goals of urban sustainability projects. It involves public efforts to improve a neighbourhood’s physical structure and boost its economy by attracting investment, usually in the sectors of real estate and tourism.
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]] This driver refers to the ways in which collective civic groups that share common interests (other than the state, the market, or the family) are either not constituted and impactful enough to influence and benefit from sustainability efforts or are indeed constrained by interventions that carry sustainability objectives.

Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg

2020-08-17T10:08:45Z

Jakob Kramer:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Overcoming compartmentalization in urban regeneration projects for inclusive sustainability and resilience]]

== a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention ==

'''1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]'''

This project is about a holistic neighbourhood development programme called Ekostaden Augustenborg and is located in a neighbourhood/district in Malmö, a swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.

It is about a holistic, sustainable development of the area which started with works on the development of a Drainage System, energy retrofitted buildings and issues around biodiversity but over the course of the project even more social, ecological and economical topics became part of it.

'''2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]'''

holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement

'''3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]'''

There is a wide focus on sustainability which includes all kind of measures in different areas:
*A strong focus on '''energy efficient buildings''' (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small scale-wind and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
*The project also aims at the modification of '''energy related behavior''' and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising and training programs as well as agreements in the rental contract
*It includes a wide variety of goals around '''mobility''' with a prioritisation of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; the encouragement of a local use of electric vehicles and the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service as well as car-pooling among residents.
*Another string of development are goals around greening the area with an attempted increase in '''biodiversity''' and a greening of roofs.
*Another big part of the intervention was the creation of a '''Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)''' which aimed at reducing flooding by 70% as the capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

*The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to '''strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood''':
annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organised visits, etc.

The intervention strongly focuses on '''procedural justice''' and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages and in some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.

'''4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?'''

The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).

There are other projects that continued to further the image of a eco-neighbourhood that happened a lot later e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg, a high-rise building with a passive-house energy standard was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as one mentioned below), but the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.

'''5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see [[#Appendix 1: Three modes of governance | Appendix 1: Three modes of governance]])'''

It is '''government-led''' but characterised by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members lateron in the project, arguably developing into a more '''hybrid''' mode of governance.

'''6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?<ref>Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.</ref>

The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability while considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and the documentation by SMARTEES is very extensive. Developing a neighbourhood in an holistic, integrative way is crucial as it aims at breaking down institutional logics, as well as compartmentalised policy making leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.

'''7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?'''

*Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf
*Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/urban-storm-water-management-in-augustenborg-malmo
*World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
https://www.world-habitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Report-Eco-city-Augustenborg-peer-exchange-5MB1.pdf

== b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work ==

'''8. EU Project-context of the intervention:'''

*'''a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).'''

It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability which lasts from 2018 until 2021.
https://local-social-innovation.eu/

*'''b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.'''

Governance and participation processes

Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation

*'''c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?'''
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.

'''9. Problematization and priority:'''

*'''a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?'''
The area has had high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems which affects the general liveability which was problematized by the municipality.

*'''b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?'''
Not directly. More in a way that life quality in the area in general is quite low in comparison to other districts of the city. It therefore is about '''distributional justice''' to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) to other areas of the city and about '''environmental justice''' issues (e.g. to protect them from floodings that could not be handled well in the past due to a missing working Drainage System).

It also tackles '''justice as recognition''' as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.

It therefore also targets '''procedural justice''' aspects.

*'''c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see [[Database of drivers of injustice | Database of drivers of injustice]])'''

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
|- style="font-weight:bold;"
! Drivers of injustices
! Based on WP4 coding
! Based on own assessment
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 1. [[Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure| Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 2. [[Material and livelihood inequalities | Material and livelihood inequalities]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 3. [[Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization | Racialized or ethnically exclusionary urbanization]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 5. [[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns|Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 6. [[Unfit institutional structures | Unfit institutional structures]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 7. [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning | Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 9. [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism | Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism ]]
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

'''10. Who initiated the intervention?'''

The district renovation was promoted by the '''city administration''' together with the '''local public housing company''' (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).

'''11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)'''

People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), also due to the environmental benefits; an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialisation, etc.), the decrease of unemployment and the increase of political participation.

'''12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?'''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Actor types<ref>Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.</ref>
! Yes
! Actor name and role<ref>If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.</ref>
|-
| Academic organizations
|
|
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
|
|
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
|
|
|}

'''13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.'''

The role of certain '''individuals''' has been emphasised by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Especially important has been the enthusiasm of those individuals. Especially mentioned are:
Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö
Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg
Christer Sandgren at MKB
Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998

Especially in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions that tried to address ALL issues in the area and did not care too much if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).

Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.

'''14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?'''

Citizen participation is one of the keys to the success of this intervention.

All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations so as to have the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents.
The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
*extensive public consultation, regular meetings, and permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings and co-design.

Important to note is the different level of participation for different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, project proponents thought about which physical investment based projects have the most scope for public involvement in design and development of the project, which have opportunities for jobs etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other, more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance, which still means that plans might have to be adapted, but the focus there is around creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but more green roofs were created when the community designed the waste-management houses (which they were in charge of) and wanted to have green roofs on them. (Interview Trevor Graham)

In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project.
Several ideas of residents were completed and implemented into the neighbourhood such as:
* Developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
* an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
* energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
* Creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children and hubs for increased biodiversity
* the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
* the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö

To add:
School pupils were involved in different aspects of the project e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels.
One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project which led to less public and neighbourhood interest. (see Q.23). This makes future efforts in the neighbourhood also more difficult as it hollows out trust by residents.

'''15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?'''

As this project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality those two were in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of the relationship between the actors was crucial for successfully developing ideas of how to change the district and which interventions to implement.
As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop a lot of their own ideas.

'''16. Exclusion:'''

*'''a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?'''

Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.

The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, the municipality has tried to include them as well (see below), but there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.

*'''b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?'''

There are a lot of non-swedish speakers living in the area.
Flyers have been printed in other languages as well as translators accompaning the participation processes which helped to include non-swedish speakers.

== d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention ==

'''17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)'''

When the area was newly built (1948-1952) it had a high status but it started to decline in the 70´s. Many problems such as high unemployment or the flooding of basements emerged. In the 90´s the neighbourhood had a lot of social, ecological and aesthetic problems which ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.

The trigger has been a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in the area of Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company who was the housing manager of Augustenborg and had the mission to renew the area. The three together contacted senior officers, colleagues and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district of Malmö.
At the first meeting over 400 people showed up to talk about flooding issues, a drainage system, green roofs and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2).
A project leader with experience in the field of transforming communities, Trevor Graham, was hired in 1998. As the project developed further; local businesses, schools and the industrial estate became a part of it.

'''18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along [[#Appendix 2: Policy typology | Appendix 2: Policy typology]])'''

It does not seem that one general policy was highly crucial for the project but Augustenborg was very linked into developments of the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham):
In the end of the 90´s a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension was present (e.g with Agenda 21 movements)
Social inclusion was a big influence and narrative of the time
There were a lot of socio-economic problems present at the time in Sweden and Malmö e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, general economic decline which led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?'''

Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012)
An important legal framework for Sweden is the '''“Planning and Building Act”''' (1987 updated in 2010) and the '''“Environmental Code”''' (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as reconstruction. It aims at paying attention to climate and environmental issues as well as regulating construction better and giving planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to check if new developments they are planning are in accordance with the Planning and Building Act.
The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella/framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes other special laws that concern the change of the physical environment. It aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, land.
Fig 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a planning monopoly generating comprehensive plans for their municipality. The Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in Planning an Building Act and Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines e.g for air quality.

'''20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)'''

Crucial was a mindset of allowing experiments, learning from mistakes and not being to uptight about mistakes which allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham)
This is also connected to a will to include citizens and the knowledge that projects are more accepted if developed together with residents.
It is a holistic and integrative way of planning, as for example shown by the efforts to also tackle resident’s energy consumption behaviour and not purely relying on
technical solutions as well as the wide variety of topics in general.
It might mean though that changes might generally take longer to implement and that certain aspects of original plans might not be implemented exactly in the way it was originally thought out to be.

In the beginning of the project a lot of people working on it shared this mindset, but as soon as certain people were not a part of the project anymore (e.g the head of a certain department changed) and other people who were not used to that mindset replaced them, flexibility and adaptivity started getting lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). So as soon as people having a mindset of not being responsible for certain issues and being afraid of mistakes became the critical mass, this flexibility disappeared (Interview Trevor Graham).

On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralised which allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development and perpetuation of the project although working in partnerships again, is not a very well developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01)

'''21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?'''

The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB), the rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included:
The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M)
The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M)
EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden
The European Union URBAN program,
A number of other sources both public and private.
The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)

'''22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?'''

The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed. The Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company and with residents. The project mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards.
A lot of other people in power changed over the course of the project which led to a change of culture around responsibilities as some of the newer people did not feel as responsible for a holistic change of the area, but cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).

'''''Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.'''''

== e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation ==

'''23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:'''

*'''a. Regulatory framework'''

There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time and not everybody involved in the project saw the need for it and some people were actively opposed to it
e.g some of the contractors architects did not see the point of involving residents (SMARTEES_01: A79.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

Trevor Graham, project manager, calls continuity the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation has been easy as there was a wide public interest in the intervention which has faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time as there were times where the housing company/the municipality was less active. This generates problems in relation to a long-term belief of a process of change for local people in a “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so” - manner. (Interview_Trevor Graham).
This meant that in the beginning (first three - four years) public interest was very high and it decreased over time.

Key here seems to be a good balance between '''short-term change of the area''' (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and '''long-term commitment of institutions''' (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something bigger) (Interview Trevor Graham)

In this case because of the efforts to include residents and even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention public resistance was not a big issue. However there was still some resistance from some individuals.

*'''d. Finances'''

answer

*'''e. Others (please name)'''

A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg which made their inclusion harder. This issue was tried to overcome with hiring translators and printing flyers in other languages.

Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents issues were discussed less.

== f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles ==

'''24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name of obstacle
! What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?
|-
| 1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)
| This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.
|-
| 2. Maintaining continuity in public participation
| Finding new ways “to do things” through letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project as they did not want to spend their own time if they did not feel that the institutions commited enough. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages also partly addressed trust issues of community members towards the municipality and the housing company.
|-
| 3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish
| Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and translators were hired by the municipality
|-
| 4. Resistance from one specific resident
| Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation
|-
| 5. Louder residents issues being more heard
| Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody
|}

== g) Reported outcomes ==

'''25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.'''

To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
*Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
*Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (to Malmö’s average)
*The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%
*The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
*A small scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project
*Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater
*The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
*There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
*Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%
*As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts
*Political interest and participation in elections have increased

== h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention ==

''Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project)<ref>Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .</ref>. Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.''

=== Learning context ===
''(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)''

'''26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:'''

*'''a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.'''

Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75)
This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).

*'''b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?'''

There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.

=== Learning content ===

'''27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?'''

*'''a. from previous experiences in the same urban context'''

Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. (There are no precisionas about where they got their ideas from)

*'''b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere'''

Not applicable.

*'''c. from other knowledge gathering/research'''

It is very important to note that learning has also happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shares stories from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time and then working in recycling with an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector again and is now working as a doctor.
Another story tells about a woman who was very much opposed to the idea of recycling (and that part of the project) but then discovered the car pool and became involved in it.

This also shows that these interventions can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.

=== Learning process ===

'''28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?'''

Not applicable.

'''29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?'''

The process of the implementation changed over the course of the project. As mentioned the greatest challenge of the development was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As staff and with them priorities changed the project lost credibility and support. The project then again had to find new ways of doing things through letting residents gain more power over decision-making. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they thought, but the new ways can be interesting and are much more diverse due to other ways of thinking by other individuals.

'''30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote)<ref>http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf
.</ref> and the actors involved in using them.'''

answer

== i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)==

'''31. Suggestions regarding transferability.'''

*'''a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]'''

In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of a replicability or transferability of the intervention. Rather single elements (e.g reducing energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.

The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes. (WorldHabitat_01: 09).
The project is recognised by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.

A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability)
Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods and says that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö and more in Sweden and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)

The organisation of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden as well as the "world's first electric road train" a zero emission electric street train service seem like they are thought to be replicated.

*'''b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?'''

Especially to areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in sweden these are mostly areas of the “million home program”) and 70´s buildings and especially in northern european areas.

*'''c. Who has made the claims?'''

SMARTEES, The world Habitats Award, Project manager

*'''d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?'''

The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city.
The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment) which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was off there (Interview Trevor Graham) At one point for example the local housing company in Rosengard just informed residents about measures through info screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings where long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned etc. .

It seems that when transferring physical changes of a project it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that institutions as well as local people are willing to change the area short-term as well as invest resources on a longer timespan.

A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking jointive long-term approaches and shared visions of change, but are operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is also connected to political issues which makes these jointive ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). This hinders learning in general and leads to making the same mistakes in different projects in different and even the same citiy over and over again. An example of this is the departmentalised way of engaging with communities as a lot of departments have their own unit that does so (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city scale these units can be brought together on a local level being an intermediary between neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham)
These departments then could become the core of a long-term structured development processes in a city acting as an institutionalised intermediary, transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalised way of how to organise learning on an individual level here as well and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change.
It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires to have strong communication skills, but also an existing network in the city around businesses, other departments of the city as well as local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working in these intermediaries right now. (Interview Trevor Graham)

'''32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?<ref>Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.</ref>

The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project and its different aspects.
Especially the part on “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg.
Also interesting is the part that is described in Q. 17 which is about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).

There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). In total over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2).
In general as the intervention is well recognised (inter)-nationally as it has received a lot of attention especially connected to the World Habitats Award which have also published a document on why Augustenborg deserves the price (WorldHeritageAward_01).
There is an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievments”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).

'''33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)'''

Especially in Malmö and Sweden a lot of aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled:
The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over Malmö (SMARTEES_01: 79).
The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% e.g through climate coaches trying to inspire residents towards sustainable lifestyles and several technical solutions (ebd.)
The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)

There are also a lot of other aspects that reportedly were transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world especially in waste-management, car-pooling, recycling and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).

The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)

== j) Structural learning ==

'''34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?'''

*For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
*Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?

It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seem to be no institutionalised bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham critises this as the city operates mostly on a project by project basis with a lacking long-term shared vision of change cross departments (Interview Trevor Graham).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

'''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''

Taking up a perspective of what could be done and helping residents in figuring out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results in the end than if the goal is to transfer best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)

'''36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?'''

One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc. tried to change ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were responsible for these issues on paper. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Another part is combining elements of social as well as physical change, which creates a process of reinforcing (E.g seeing that my neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood you might think that you can do so as well)

== Appendix 1: Three modes of governance ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

NATURVATION's [https://naturvation.eu/atlas| NBS-Atlas ] distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":

* '''Government-led''' (Gov)
* '''Co-governance or hybrid governance''' (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
* '''Led by non-government actors''' (NGO)

Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology:
Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95

# '''Self-governing''', intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
# '''Provision''', greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
# '''Regulations''', enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
# '''Enabling''', supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”

== Appendix 2: Policy typology ==
''(from NATURVATION project)''

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
! Policy typology
! Description
! Examples
|-
| '''Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)'''
| Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors
| Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.
|-
| '''Economic (financial, market-based)'''
| Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.
|-
| '''Informative (educational)'''
| They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change
| Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.
|-
| '''Voluntary'''
| Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.
| Voluntary actions and agreements.
|}

[[test tableau]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-08-17T09:53:31Z

Jakob Kramer:

'''Imagine a city where streets are not dominated by cars but by people. Where streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system. In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have had too. Giving streets their old functions back also means targetting injustices created by urban intensification, a neoliberal mode of urban planning and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

Now imagine a municipality that has addressed these problems. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include? It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board. Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local peculiarities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate.

For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system. Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change. The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending.

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences. For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long. To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised.

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here. It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned. In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future.

Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]. This approach cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society.
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]]. This approach refers to the right to make and remake ourselves and our cities.
*[[Nature-based solutions]]. This approach refers to solutions for urban sustainability that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]. This driver refers to unequal exposure to harmful and health-impairing pollutants,conditions and urban environments and/or unequal access to safe and healthy environments.
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. This driver refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors and how they can undermine urban sustainability, guided by an ideology of unfettered economic growth which often aligns with austerity policies.
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]] This driver refers to the ways in which (access to) useful information and know-how around sustainable urban interventions and their benefits is not shared effectively or equally among disciplines, sectors or social groups, and thus constrain the potential for both sustainability and justice.
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]] This driver refers to the limited involvement and engagement of citizens and citizens’ initiatives in decision-making around the planning, design, implementation and/or evaluation of urban sustainability-oriented interventions.
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]] This driver refers to the ways in which new urban developments might force trade-offs between the social and environmental goals of urban sustainability projects. It involves public efforts to improve a neighbourhood’s physical structure and boost its economy by attracting investment, usually in the sectors of real estate and tourism.
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]] This driver refers to the ways in which collective civic groups that share common interests (other than the state, the market, or the family) are either not constituted and impactful enough to influence and benefit from sustainability efforts or are indeed constrained by interventions that carry sustainability objectives.

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-08-17T09:32:11Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

'''Imagine a city where streets are not dominated by cars but by people. Where streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system. In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have had too. Giving streets their old functions back also means targetting injustices created by urban intensification, a neoliberal mode of urban planning and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

Now imagine a municipality that has addressed these problems. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include? It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board. Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local peculiarities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate.

For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system. Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change. The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending.

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences. For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long. To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised.

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here. It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned. In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future.

Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]. This approach cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society.
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]]. This approach refers to the right to make and remake ourselves and our cities.
*[[Nature-based solutions]]. This approach refers to solutions for urban sustainability that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]. This driver refers to unequal exposure to harmful and health-impairing pollutants,conditions and urban environments and/or unequal access to safe and healthy environments.
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. This driver refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors and how they can undermine urban sustainability, guided by an ideology of unfettered economic growth which often aligns with austerity policies.
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]
*[[Weak(ened) civil society]]

Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation

2020-08-17T09:31:19Z

Jakob Kramer: /* Do you want to learn more about this scenario? */

'''Imagine a city where streets are not dominated by cars but by people. Where streets are a place of social gatherings, a place where children play and neighbours meet, a place of interaction, where they are urban hotspots!'''

How can we get there?

Reaching this reality would mean to largely rethink our transport and mobility system. In many places, cars are the dominating mode of transport, which is leading to air and noise pollution, accelerating climate change and making urban life less healthy. Combatting these issues is also a matter of justice as poorer people are generally more affected by environmental degradation, pollution and the effects of climate change. Additionally, streets right now mainly serve as transport routes, but have lost social functions that they have had too. Giving streets their old functions back also means targetting injustices created by urban intensification, a neoliberal mode of urban planning and the unjust effects of a weak civil society such as the exclusion of marginalized groups in urban governance.

Now imagine a municipality that has addressed these problems. Who would municipal actors need to work with, who would they have to include? It seems like a complete overhaul of such a deep-rooted problem would necessitate working together with all kinds of local stakeholders be it local businesses, NGOs or academia but especially crucial seems to have local residents on board. Such a city-wide transformation would also have to adapt to local peculiarities. Formalised local working groups that regularly meet and are responsible for designing the process in each neighbourhood could give citizens responsibility and power over their neighbourhood while also including a variety of other actors that want to participate.

For this to work, it is necessary that municipalities safeguard their power to govern their local transport system. Additionally, connecting the process to other local level sustainable development policies and agreements in different sectors can give the project legitimacy and help develop holistic visions for comprehensive change. The better integrated specific solutions are into bigger developments of change, the easier it is to believe in grand opportunities of change and the power of a shared vision! If this happens, sustainable developments may be achievable even with comparatively little extra spending.

As this process hinges upon working together with citizens, it is crucial that citizens feel they are an integral part of it. Still, municipality-led processes might encounter local resistance, potentially because residents do not believe in the effectiveness of the process and its ability to change the current situation or because they fear potential negative consequences. For example, some may question whether public transport can provide enough capacity to cushion the reduction of private car usage or worry that commuting to work would take too long. To address such concerns, it may be important to tackle the substance of such problems, but it could also be important to change the process, especially how participation is organised.

Looking at learning outcomes from past projects in your own city can further help the process in overcoming obstacles. This might mean that experiences from past policies in similar sectors, for example making streets more pedestrian-friendly can prove vital here. It might even be the case that resistance in the past against other municipality-led projects have voiced the same concerns. This might help in finding solutions for overcoming those obstacles as well as encouraging project proponents to not give up if things do not go as originally planned. In the end, this general flexibility in how the project has to develop could lead to improved methods of communication and participation in the future.

Finally, communicating with media about ideas within the project can help pique the interest of other cities and spread knowledge to other urban areas.

==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==

Take a look at the detailed description of [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]] that has inspired this scenario.

This scenario fits under the '''approaches''':
*[[Energy and Mobility solutions]]. This approach cluster addresses technological interventions that can support the transition to a low-carbon society.
*[[Right to the city (YOU ARE WELCOME TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PAGE!)| Right to the city]]. This approach refers to the right to make and remake ourselves and our cities.
*[[Nature-based solutions]]. This approach refers to solutions for urban sustainability that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.

It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]. This driver refers to unequal exposure to harmful and health-impairing pollutants,conditions and urban environments and/or unequal access to safe and healthy environments.
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. This driver refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors and how they can undermine urban sustainability, guided by an ideology of unfettered economic growth which often aligns with austerity policies.
*[[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]]
*[[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]