Urban Arena Wiki - User contributions [en]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-16T12:38:17Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [https://local-social-innovation.eu/| Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.] You can also find the case report [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/SMARTEES-D5.1_Policy_Framework_R1.pdf| here!]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Biodiversity Protection and Social Justice in the Barcelona Natural Park

2021-03-16T12:08:05Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]]

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! [https://www.parcnaturalcollserola.cat/en/| Visit their website for more information.]
{{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)”]'''====

Peri-urban Natural Park of Collserola (Serra de Collserola Natural Park) in Barcelona (Naturvation_08).

===='''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.]'''====

Green Space for biodiversity protection, ecosystem services provision, and Nature-Based Solution (NBS).

===='''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]'''====

The intervention aims to protect Barcelona's fragile Peri-Urban ecosystems for both social and ecological functions while preserving biodiversity and providing ecosystem services to nearby residents (Naturvation_08). Since the enactment of the special plan for planning and protection of the natural environment in 1987, the park has become an area for recreation and connection to nature, promotion of the cultural and environmental values of the local population, and protection of an area of great ecological value (Naturvation_09).
Barcelona is a highly populated and dense city with relatively a few available green spaces. Collserola Park enhances the quality of life in the city, in particular through the forests' contribution to air pollution removal and urban cooling (Naturvation_08).

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

The park’s new management activities started in 2010 and are still ongoing. The intervention was studied in the context of the NATURVATION project during the period 2016 - 2020 (Naturvation_08).

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

Government-led (Naturvation_08).

===='''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 intervention meets the WP5 criteria for a case selection/study criteria by highlighting the governance challenges associated with the addressing the need for green spaces for both recreational activities and biodiversity protection. In particular, maintaining a balance between different stakeholders' visions for the park and ensuring local citizens participate in the park’s planning and management (given the geographical scale of the intervention and the traditionally hierarchical governance mode of the actors) are noteworthy challenges.

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

Naturvation Deliverables
*Urban Nature Atlas: A database of nature-based solutions across 100 European cities, 2018 (Naturvation_07)
*Taking action for urban nature - citizens engagement handbook, 2019 (Naturvation_01)
*International comparison of nature-based solutions project report, 2019 (Naturvation_06)

== 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).'''

The intervention was studied by NATURVATION with funding by the European Union’s HORIZON 2020 Programme (Naturvation_08).
https://naturvation.eu/nbs/barcelona/peri-urban-natural-park-collserola

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the “Nature-Based Solutions” approach. It has been studied under the NATURVATION project, which is mentioned as an example in the database of approaches.

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

Yes, the four deliverables mentioned above (Q. 7).

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

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

Collserola Park is the largest green space in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, an area that is under significant demographic pressure (Naturvation_09). Rapid urbanization was seen as a potential threat to fragile peri-urban ecosystems and consequently to biodiversity protection, ecosystem services, and access to nature. Additionally, uneven representation of different visions - biodiversity protection vs. recreation - between different groups reflect wider tensions and inequalities that local citizens had problematized in the park's existing management (Naturvation_06:82).

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

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities is the major motivation behind the intervention (Naturvation_08).
The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) was devised to address Collserola’s new status as a NATURA 2000 site, responding to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas (Naturvation_06:19).

*'''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]]
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| 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 ]]
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| Yes
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The intervention was initiated and is now jointly managed by the Park Consortium, composed of members from the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya), the Barcelona Provincial Council (Diputació de Barcelona), the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (AMB), and the adjacent nine municipalities (within the territory of the Park): El Papiol, Molins de Rei, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Sant Just Desvern, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, Montcada i Reixac, Cerdanyola Del Vallès and Sant Cugat del Vallè (Naturvation_08).

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

Park visitors and local citizens. Park visitors could be outsiders e.g. tourists or scientists. Local citizens not only benefit from visits but also from the ecosystem services that the park provides, such as moderating atmospheric temperature.

===='''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
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Religious organizations
| Yes
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| Yes
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| Yes
| The park consortium (see Q10) is responsible for the management and development of the Special Plan for the Ordering and Protection of the Natural Environment of the Parc de Collserola (Naturvation_08).
|-
| 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 interactions within the initiating consortium, i.e. between the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya), the Barcelona Provincial Council (Diputació de Barcelona), the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the nine adjacent municipalities (Naturvation_06:19).

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

Citizens and visitors to the park are encouraged to leave suggestions for the park’s improvement at the information centre (Naturvation_07:59). Citizens are also asked for their feedback on the Park’s management plan (Naturvation_01:11). However, according to the NATURVATION project documentation, the Collserola Park's management plans are often only shared with the public at an advanced stage of development and in formats that are not easy to understand. According to NATURVATION’s informants, citizens in Barcelona were invited to comment on initial park management drafts where, despite the inclusive small group format, the discussion topics were pre-decided by the organizers, which obstructed effective participation (Naturvation_06:24).

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

In terms of inclusive decision-making, the park's governance system is comparatively advanced and informed (Interview, 08.06.2020).
The Serra de Collserola Natural Park is governed by the following bodies:
*General assembly
The General Assembly is the Consortium’s supreme deliberation and decision-making body. It is made up of 10 members from Barcelona Diputació, 10 members from Barcelona Metropolitan Area, four members from the Government of Catalonia (Generalitat), one member from each city or town council affiliated to the Consortium and one member from an invited entity.
*Executive committee
The Executive Committee is an operational body established to monitor and develop mechanisms for the implementation of decisions taken in the General Assembly. The Executive Committee comprises of twenty-one members, of which at least three are representatives of Barcelona Diputació, three Barcelona Metropolitan Area, and three from the Government of Catalonia.
*Consultative committee
The Consultative Committee is the advisory body that brings together the social, academic, cultural, professional, and economic sectors, alongside private non-profit organizations that pursue goals of general interest that coincide with those of the Consortium.
*Scientific advisory committee
The aim of the Scientific Advisory Committee is to provide advice based on scientific knowledge to the governing and management bodies of the Natural Park in regards to particular action items. Its creation is pursuant to Article 13 of Decree 146/2010, of a declaration of the Natural Park of the Serra de Collserola (Naturvation_10).

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

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

The Naturvation project reported the tokenized participation of local citizens in the Parks management and planning (Naturvation_06:24).

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

The analysis conducted by NATURVATION project lists following constraints to citizens’ participation::
*Park managers fear that the citizens' engagement (or inclusion) in the park’s planning could weaken their vision for longterm sustainability and biodiversity protection (Interview).
*Citizens' engagement in park management often depends on the interest and goodwill of individuals coordinating the plan.
*Lack of trust sometimes makes municipalities reluctant to genuinely engage with civil groups.
*A perceived sense among the citizens that the proposed plan would proceed regardless of consultation responses has also impeded public participation in the management of the Park.
*The contextual distance between civil groups and municipalities and any pre-existing contestations has influenced the participation process.
*Low turn-out rate is a factor of privilege: only those who could afford to volunteer or participate affected who could be present in NBS consultations and management planning (Naturvation_06:24).

== 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 EU directive 92/43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora provided context for the creation of Natrua 2000: a European ecological network of special areas for conservation. Under this directive, the Agreement of the Government of the Generalitat de Catalunya of September 5, 2006 approved the proposal detailing places of community importance. This included the Serra de Collserola, which corresponds to the totality of the "Space included in the Plan of Areas of Natural Interest".
This territory has been managed since 1987 within the framework of a special protection plan. Its environmental protection dimension was then consolidated with the declaration of the Natural Park in 2010 (Naturvation_08).

===='''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]])'''====

As already stated above (Q. 17), the EU Policy NATURA 2000 joins national implementation in local territories with multiple levels of regional, local, and municipal government agencies.

===='''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?'''====

On basis of the constitutional responsibilities (as prescribed by Spain’s constitution from 1978), regional and local government bodies have been involved in the implementation of the (European) NATURA 2000 policy within the context of the park's management:
Part VIII Territorial Organization of State:
*Section 140: Autonomy of municipalities
*Section 141: … a provincial government comprised of municipalities is designed to carry out the activities of the state.
*Section 142: local treasuries must have sufficient funds available in order to perform the tasks assigned by the law.
Chapter 3: Principles Governing Economic and Social Policy
*Section 45: Everyone has the right to enjoy an environment suitable for the development of the person, as well as the duty to preserve it.
*Section 45: The public authorities shall watch over a rational use of all natural resources with a view to protecting and improving the quality of life and preserving and restoring the environment…

===='''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.)'''====

According to NATURVATION project documentation (Naturvation_06), constant coordination and collaboration between municipalities and regional bodies were very important to the success of the intervention - for instance, in overcoming differences in interests.

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

The Diputació de Barcelona and the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona provide the annual budget to support the program of actions (Naturvation_08).

===='''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 Naturvation project has documented that the park consortium adopted new and improved methods for engaging citizens in planning and managing the park (Naturvation_01:59).

'''''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'''

The NATURVATION project has reported some controversies during the development of the Collserola Management Plan (PepNat) specifically focused on whether or not an urban park - highly accessible and with considerable grey infrastructure - should be subject to a stricter (biodiversity) protection regime.
Similarly, an interviewee for the study highlighted that there were conflicts between visions for the park from major park management entities i.e. the regional government, park authority, and the AMB. The regional government and the park authority favored more biodiversity protection for long-term sustainability, whereas the AMB favored fulfilling the demand for recreation and thus shorter-term social justice goals (given the small number of green spaces in the highly-dense and populated city of Barcelona).
The interviewee further flagged tensions around the central authority of the park. Collserola was first under the direct control of the regional government, but due to some political power influences, the park’s authority shifted from the regional to local government.
Finally, the NATURVATION project has also documented that the Collserola Management Plan (2019) left some issues unaddressed, such as the possibility of gentrification in the Park’s surrounding areas and illegal housing within the park's premises (Naturvation_06:26).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The Naturvation project has documented the obscured socio-economic impacts of the Park’s management plans. The plans had gained popularity by promising multiple benefits, yet remained imprecise and neglected difficulties or discrepancies with implementing such measures (Naturvation_06:26).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The proposal for adaptive management in Collserola’s PepNat introduced new concepts and ideas about park management that were too technical to understand by all stakeholders, giving rise to questions and contestation about their implementation and impacts (Naturvation_06:24).

*'''d. Finances'''

According to an interviewee, the park is the best financially-equipped park in the region.

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

We found no references to other types of obstacles

== 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.Contestations around different visions for the park: biodiversity protection vs. recreation
| Stakeholder negotiations and park planning to strike a balance between both visions.
On the ground, the park managers are trying to reduce the number of trails, adopt a regulative approach, and restrict zones for bikers (additional signage) (WP5 Interview on 08.06.202).
|-
| 2. Questionable social benefits
| The Park Consortium designed more recreational activities for the Park’s visitors (Naturvation_09).
|-
| 3.Poor public participation and lack of awareness
| The regional and park authorities initiated a variety of public participation methods – incorporating discussions that were similar to round tables in order to debate and discuss its planning drafts with citizens.
The initiative benefited from numerous public meetings and workshops held on municipal premises adjacent to the park. However, it was found difficult to provide sufficient information for citizens to develop an informed perspective (Naturvation_01:11).
|-
| 4.
|
|-
| 5.
|
|}

== 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.'''====

The park currently hosts several plant and animal species; a large number of visitors are attracted every year (almost 30.000 in 2015); and programs several environmental education activities. The intervention is ongoing, below are expected impacts:
*Green space, habitats and biodiversity (SDG 15)
*Regeneration, land-use and urban development
*Inclusive and effective governance (SDG 16)
*Health and well-being (SDG 3) (Naturvation_08).

== 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.'''

Not reported.

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

Not reported.

=== 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'''

The Park has adopted a lot of guidance from the region. The park authority was involved in various European networks for learning and knowledge exchange with other parks. In general, its management/governance system composed of various bodies has greater capacity for learning and exchange (https://www.europarc.org/case-studies/transition-agroecology-collserola-nature-park-enhanced-participatory-process) (Interview, 08.06.20).

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

Answered above under question number 27.

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

The parks’ governance body has a scientific advisory committee that makes decisions for the park on the basis of scientific research (Interview, 08.06.20).

=== 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 reported.

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

According to the NATURVATION project, the park consortium has adopted new ways of citizens engagement in the park’s management planning. However, the issue is not yet fully addressed (6).

===='''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.'''====

It can be assumed that the numerous citizen engagement meetings and workshops organized in municipal premises by the park consortium (as recorded by Naturvation) added to the learning process (Naturvation_01).

== 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]'''

The intervention could be replicated in other places in Spain or Catalonia. Interestingly, according to an interviewee, southern countries are not often exemplary in terms of sustainability governance and are rather replicating interventions from northern European countries i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands etc. This may change, as Italy especially has shown some interest in Catalonian sustainability interventions.

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

Other cities in Spain.

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

Johannes Langemeyer, Established Researcher, ICTA - UAB as a passive observer of the Collserola National Park on June 10, 2020, has made the claim of potential transferability of the intervention.

*'''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> '''====

Some learnings from the intervention have been recorded by the NATURVATION project and are hence accessible via the respective website.

===='''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”?)'''====

Not reported.

== 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?

None

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

===='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''====
This is a purely government-led intervention that benefitted from trans-organisational cooperation, but was challenged by a lack of effective citizens’ participation.

WP5 Interviewee (Johannes Langemeyer) on June 08, 2020: The biggest takeaway from this intervention in terms of governance arrangements is how bringing together different legitimate views, especially in combining long-term vision (from the province and with a view to protect a natural area) and short-term vision (from the municipality to mitigate the lack of natural areas and provide residents with a recreational area), could be a challenge.

===='''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?'''====

== 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) favorable (or unfavorable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurements. 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]]

Biodiversity Protection and Social Justice in the Barcelona Natural Park

2021-03-16T12:07:45Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]]
{{toclimit|limit=2}}

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! [https://www.parcnaturalcollserola.cat/en/| Visit their website for more information.]
== 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)”]'''====

Peri-urban Natural Park of Collserola (Serra de Collserola Natural Park) in Barcelona (Naturvation_08).

===='''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.]'''====

Green Space for biodiversity protection, ecosystem services provision, and Nature-Based Solution (NBS).

===='''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]'''====

The intervention aims to protect Barcelona's fragile Peri-Urban ecosystems for both social and ecological functions while preserving biodiversity and providing ecosystem services to nearby residents (Naturvation_08). Since the enactment of the special plan for planning and protection of the natural environment in 1987, the park has become an area for recreation and connection to nature, promotion of the cultural and environmental values of the local population, and protection of an area of great ecological value (Naturvation_09).
Barcelona is a highly populated and dense city with relatively a few available green spaces. Collserola Park enhances the quality of life in the city, in particular through the forests' contribution to air pollution removal and urban cooling (Naturvation_08).

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

The park’s new management activities started in 2010 and are still ongoing. The intervention was studied in the context of the NATURVATION project during the period 2016 - 2020 (Naturvation_08).

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

Government-led (Naturvation_08).

===='''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 intervention meets the WP5 criteria for a case selection/study criteria by highlighting the governance challenges associated with the addressing the need for green spaces for both recreational activities and biodiversity protection. In particular, maintaining a balance between different stakeholders' visions for the park and ensuring local citizens participate in the park’s planning and management (given the geographical scale of the intervention and the traditionally hierarchical governance mode of the actors) are noteworthy challenges.

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

Naturvation Deliverables
*Urban Nature Atlas: A database of nature-based solutions across 100 European cities, 2018 (Naturvation_07)
*Taking action for urban nature - citizens engagement handbook, 2019 (Naturvation_01)
*International comparison of nature-based solutions project report, 2019 (Naturvation_06)

== 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).'''

The intervention was studied by NATURVATION with funding by the European Union’s HORIZON 2020 Programme (Naturvation_08).
https://naturvation.eu/nbs/barcelona/peri-urban-natural-park-collserola

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the “Nature-Based Solutions” approach. It has been studied under the NATURVATION project, which is mentioned as an example in the database of approaches.

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

Yes, the four deliverables mentioned above (Q. 7).

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

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

Collserola Park is the largest green space in the metropolitan area of Barcelona, an area that is under significant demographic pressure (Naturvation_09). Rapid urbanization was seen as a potential threat to fragile peri-urban ecosystems and consequently to biodiversity protection, ecosystem services, and access to nature. Additionally, uneven representation of different visions - biodiversity protection vs. recreation - between different groups reflect wider tensions and inequalities that local citizens had problematized in the park's existing management (Naturvation_06:82).

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

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities is the major motivation behind the intervention (Naturvation_08).
The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) was devised to address Collserola’s new status as a NATURA 2000 site, responding to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas (Naturvation_06:19).

*'''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]]
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| 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 ]]
| Yes
| Yes
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| Yes
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The intervention was initiated and is now jointly managed by the Park Consortium, composed of members from the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya), the Barcelona Provincial Council (Diputació de Barcelona), the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (AMB), and the adjacent nine municipalities (within the territory of the Park): El Papiol, Molins de Rei, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Sant Just Desvern, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, Montcada i Reixac, Cerdanyola Del Vallès and Sant Cugat del Vallè (Naturvation_08).

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

Park visitors and local citizens. Park visitors could be outsiders e.g. tourists or scientists. Local citizens not only benefit from visits but also from the ecosystem services that the park provides, such as moderating atmospheric temperature.

===='''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
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Religious organizations
| Yes
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Civil society organizations
|
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| Yes
| as part of consultative and scientific committees, see Q15
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| Yes
| The park consortium (see Q10) is responsible for the management and development of the Special Plan for the Ordering and Protection of the Natural Environment of the Parc de Collserola (Naturvation_08).
|-
| 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 interactions within the initiating consortium, i.e. between the Catalan government (Generalitat de Catalunya), the Barcelona Provincial Council (Diputació de Barcelona), the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the nine adjacent municipalities (Naturvation_06:19).

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

Citizens and visitors to the park are encouraged to leave suggestions for the park’s improvement at the information centre (Naturvation_07:59). Citizens are also asked for their feedback on the Park’s management plan (Naturvation_01:11). However, according to the NATURVATION project documentation, the Collserola Park's management plans are often only shared with the public at an advanced stage of development and in formats that are not easy to understand. According to NATURVATION’s informants, citizens in Barcelona were invited to comment on initial park management drafts where, despite the inclusive small group format, the discussion topics were pre-decided by the organizers, which obstructed effective participation (Naturvation_06:24).

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

In terms of inclusive decision-making, the park's governance system is comparatively advanced and informed (Interview, 08.06.2020).
The Serra de Collserola Natural Park is governed by the following bodies:
*General assembly
The General Assembly is the Consortium’s supreme deliberation and decision-making body. It is made up of 10 members from Barcelona Diputació, 10 members from Barcelona Metropolitan Area, four members from the Government of Catalonia (Generalitat), one member from each city or town council affiliated to the Consortium and one member from an invited entity.
*Executive committee
The Executive Committee is an operational body established to monitor and develop mechanisms for the implementation of decisions taken in the General Assembly. The Executive Committee comprises of twenty-one members, of which at least three are representatives of Barcelona Diputació, three Barcelona Metropolitan Area, and three from the Government of Catalonia.
*Consultative committee
The Consultative Committee is the advisory body that brings together the social, academic, cultural, professional, and economic sectors, alongside private non-profit organizations that pursue goals of general interest that coincide with those of the Consortium.
*Scientific advisory committee
The aim of the Scientific Advisory Committee is to provide advice based on scientific knowledge to the governing and management bodies of the Natural Park in regards to particular action items. Its creation is pursuant to Article 13 of Decree 146/2010, of a declaration of the Natural Park of the Serra de Collserola (Naturvation_10).

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

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

The Naturvation project reported the tokenized participation of local citizens in the Parks management and planning (Naturvation_06:24).

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

The analysis conducted by NATURVATION project lists following constraints to citizens’ participation::
*Park managers fear that the citizens' engagement (or inclusion) in the park’s planning could weaken their vision for longterm sustainability and biodiversity protection (Interview).
*Citizens' engagement in park management often depends on the interest and goodwill of individuals coordinating the plan.
*Lack of trust sometimes makes municipalities reluctant to genuinely engage with civil groups.
*A perceived sense among the citizens that the proposed plan would proceed regardless of consultation responses has also impeded public participation in the management of the Park.
*The contextual distance between civil groups and municipalities and any pre-existing contestations has influenced the participation process.
*Low turn-out rate is a factor of privilege: only those who could afford to volunteer or participate affected who could be present in NBS consultations and management planning (Naturvation_06:24).

== 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 EU directive 92/43 / EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora provided context for the creation of Natrua 2000: a European ecological network of special areas for conservation. Under this directive, the Agreement of the Government of the Generalitat de Catalunya of September 5, 2006 approved the proposal detailing places of community importance. This included the Serra de Collserola, which corresponds to the totality of the "Space included in the Plan of Areas of Natural Interest".
This territory has been managed since 1987 within the framework of a special protection plan. Its environmental protection dimension was then consolidated with the declaration of the Natural Park in 2010 (Naturvation_08).

===='''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]])'''====

As already stated above (Q. 17), the EU Policy NATURA 2000 joins national implementation in local territories with multiple levels of regional, local, and municipal government agencies.

===='''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?'''====

On basis of the constitutional responsibilities (as prescribed by Spain’s constitution from 1978), regional and local government bodies have been involved in the implementation of the (European) NATURA 2000 policy within the context of the park's management:
Part VIII Territorial Organization of State:
*Section 140: Autonomy of municipalities
*Section 141: … a provincial government comprised of municipalities is designed to carry out the activities of the state.
*Section 142: local treasuries must have sufficient funds available in order to perform the tasks assigned by the law.
Chapter 3: Principles Governing Economic and Social Policy
*Section 45: Everyone has the right to enjoy an environment suitable for the development of the person, as well as the duty to preserve it.
*Section 45: The public authorities shall watch over a rational use of all natural resources with a view to protecting and improving the quality of life and preserving and restoring the environment…

===='''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.)'''====

According to NATURVATION project documentation (Naturvation_06), constant coordination and collaboration between municipalities and regional bodies were very important to the success of the intervention - for instance, in overcoming differences in interests.

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

The Diputació de Barcelona and the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona provide the annual budget to support the program of actions (Naturvation_08).

===='''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 Naturvation project has documented that the park consortium adopted new and improved methods for engaging citizens in planning and managing the park (Naturvation_01:59).

'''''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'''

The NATURVATION project has reported some controversies during the development of the Collserola Management Plan (PepNat) specifically focused on whether or not an urban park - highly accessible and with considerable grey infrastructure - should be subject to a stricter (biodiversity) protection regime.
Similarly, an interviewee for the study highlighted that there were conflicts between visions for the park from major park management entities i.e. the regional government, park authority, and the AMB. The regional government and the park authority favored more biodiversity protection for long-term sustainability, whereas the AMB favored fulfilling the demand for recreation and thus shorter-term social justice goals (given the small number of green spaces in the highly-dense and populated city of Barcelona).
The interviewee further flagged tensions around the central authority of the park. Collserola was first under the direct control of the regional government, but due to some political power influences, the park’s authority shifted from the regional to local government.
Finally, the NATURVATION project has also documented that the Collserola Management Plan (2019) left some issues unaddressed, such as the possibility of gentrification in the Park’s surrounding areas and illegal housing within the park's premises (Naturvation_06:26).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The Naturvation project has documented the obscured socio-economic impacts of the Park’s management plans. The plans had gained popularity by promising multiple benefits, yet remained imprecise and neglected difficulties or discrepancies with implementing such measures (Naturvation_06:26).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The proposal for adaptive management in Collserola’s PepNat introduced new concepts and ideas about park management that were too technical to understand by all stakeholders, giving rise to questions and contestation about their implementation and impacts (Naturvation_06:24).

*'''d. Finances'''

According to an interviewee, the park is the best financially-equipped park in the region.

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

We found no references to other types of obstacles

== 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.Contestations around different visions for the park: biodiversity protection vs. recreation
| Stakeholder negotiations and park planning to strike a balance between both visions.
On the ground, the park managers are trying to reduce the number of trails, adopt a regulative approach, and restrict zones for bikers (additional signage) (WP5 Interview on 08.06.202).
|-
| 2. Questionable social benefits
| The Park Consortium designed more recreational activities for the Park’s visitors (Naturvation_09).
|-
| 3.Poor public participation and lack of awareness
| The regional and park authorities initiated a variety of public participation methods – incorporating discussions that were similar to round tables in order to debate and discuss its planning drafts with citizens.
The initiative benefited from numerous public meetings and workshops held on municipal premises adjacent to the park. However, it was found difficult to provide sufficient information for citizens to develop an informed perspective (Naturvation_01:11).
|-
| 4.
|
|-
| 5.
|
|}

== 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.'''====

The park currently hosts several plant and animal species; a large number of visitors are attracted every year (almost 30.000 in 2015); and programs several environmental education activities. The intervention is ongoing, below are expected impacts:
*Green space, habitats and biodiversity (SDG 15)
*Regeneration, land-use and urban development
*Inclusive and effective governance (SDG 16)
*Health and well-being (SDG 3) (Naturvation_08).

== 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.'''

Not reported.

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

Not reported.

=== 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'''

The Park has adopted a lot of guidance from the region. The park authority was involved in various European networks for learning and knowledge exchange with other parks. In general, its management/governance system composed of various bodies has greater capacity for learning and exchange (https://www.europarc.org/case-studies/transition-agroecology-collserola-nature-park-enhanced-participatory-process) (Interview, 08.06.20).

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

Answered above under question number 27.

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

The parks’ governance body has a scientific advisory committee that makes decisions for the park on the basis of scientific research (Interview, 08.06.20).

=== 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 reported.

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

According to the NATURVATION project, the park consortium has adopted new ways of citizens engagement in the park’s management planning. However, the issue is not yet fully addressed (6).

===='''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.'''====

It can be assumed that the numerous citizen engagement meetings and workshops organized in municipal premises by the park consortium (as recorded by Naturvation) added to the learning process (Naturvation_01).

== 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]'''

The intervention could be replicated in other places in Spain or Catalonia. Interestingly, according to an interviewee, southern countries are not often exemplary in terms of sustainability governance and are rather replicating interventions from northern European countries i.e. Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands etc. This may change, as Italy especially has shown some interest in Catalonian sustainability interventions.

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

Other cities in Spain.

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

Johannes Langemeyer, Established Researcher, ICTA - UAB as a passive observer of the Collserola National Park on June 10, 2020, has made the claim of potential transferability of the intervention.

*'''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> '''====

Some learnings from the intervention have been recorded by the NATURVATION project and are hence accessible via the respective website.

===='''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”?)'''====

Not reported.

== 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?

None

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

===='''35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?'''====
This is a purely government-led intervention that benefitted from trans-organisational cooperation, but was challenged by a lack of effective citizens’ participation.

WP5 Interviewee (Johannes Langemeyer) on June 08, 2020: The biggest takeaway from this intervention in terms of governance arrangements is how bringing together different legitimate views, especially in combining long-term vision (from the province and with a view to protect a natural area) and short-term vision (from the municipality to mitigate the lack of natural areas and provide residents with a recreational area), could be a challenge.

===='''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?'''====

== 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) favorable (or unfavorable) economic conditions for targeted actors
| Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurements. 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]]

Inner-city community energy in London

2021-03-15T16:14:45Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]!

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Visit [http://www.repowering.org.uk/contact/| their website] for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

Repowering, previously called Brixton Energy, in Lambeth Borough of London, England (neighborhood in capital city).

Repowering is a cooperatively owned community energy initiative for multi-unit residential buildings. It began with one project in Brixton, and later became an organization called Repowering, which now actively creates and manages replications of the original project throughout London. It also helps support other community energy projects in London (PATHWAYS_03:4).

==='''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. More specifically, the policy fields of (renewable) energy policy, community energy policy, and fuel poverty policy.

==='''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]'''===

Repowering is promoting the small-scale generation and use of renewable energy among communities in London. Additionally, they are facilitating energy efficiency initiatives and aiming to reduce energy poverty in their project regions while building skills and knowledge about renewable energy via (paid) internships for local youth.
The key goals as stated by the group include:
*start generating renewable energy in Brixton
*develop opportunities for a community investment vehicle
*increase resilience by reducing dependence on big energy companies
*use retained profits to educate residents about energy efficiency
*tackle fuel poverty, and
*provide training and employment for local people.
(TT Brixton)

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

The formation of the original Brixton Energy group and the planning and implementation of the three projects, BES1, BES2, BES3, occurred roughly between 2011-2013 (PATHWAYS_03:6). Since BES3, Repowering London has continued to create its own and engage with others’ community solar initiatives. In May 2018, Repowering installed the world's first blockchain energy trade on a national grid.

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

Non-government led and implemented.
The case is characterized by leadership of non-government actors, primarily community members. However, the Lambeth Council was very supportive (helped build connections and held regular meetings in the beginning stages, provided knowledge in energy and project management, assisted with planning permissions for the projects, financially supported projects through a small fund) (PATHWAYS_03:8). The Council and other local governmental organizations are official partners of the intervention (Repowering website_our partners).

==='''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 intervention is a good example of a successful initiative studied within an EU-funded research project that connects sustainability and justice in an urban setting, and demonstrates the role of local initiatives in energy transitions.

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

PATHWAYS’ in-depth case report on Brixton Energy (PATHWAYS_03) and the current Repowering website (Repowering website) are the main source of information. They are in the Zotero library. An interview in July 2020 with Agamemnon Otero, Co-Founder Brixton Energy complemented the information found from these sources.

== 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).'''

This intervention was documented as a case study within the PATHWAYS project (2013-2016) (PATHWAYS_04). PATHWAYS explored the transition pathways to sustainable, low carbon societies through analysis of select cases using integrated assessment modelling, socio-technical transition analysis, and initiative-based learning. Initiative Based Learning (IBL) was used to study the evolution of Brixton Energy, a cooperatively owned solar energy project in London, England, and the UK’s first inner-city renewable energy co-operative. PATHWAYS studied the gestation, development, and implementation of the initial program, and analyzed its potential for replication and transfer across contexts and scales.

*'''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.'''

[[Energy and Mobility solutions]], [[Governance and participation processes]], [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]], [[Sustainable households]]. Brixton case was explicitly highlighted in [[(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]].

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

No.

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

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

The problematization of energy poverty, and the desire for education, employment, and projects for estates came directly from listening to community needs (Otero interview).

Inequality is most directly shown on Repowering’s website through the concept of energy poverty. Energy poverty occurs when a “household suffers from a lack of adequate energy services in the home” and includes “adequate warmth, cooling, lighting and the energy to power appliances are essential services needed to guarantee a decent standard of living and citizens' health.'’ (EU energy poverty observatory). Since energy poverty is a consequence of low income, healthy standards of living in urban dwellings can be positioned as a social inequality. A more specific component of energy poverty is fuel poverty, which refers to the inability to keep a dwelling adequately heated.

This specific problematization appears to have been raised by Brixton community members during the early stage of the first solar initiative. The team discovered, through door-to-door consultations, that the most important issue for residents was their electricity bills. Therefore, the initiative became more focused on trying to address this via the Community Energy Efficiency Fund (PATHWAYS_03:11).

Repowering also recognizes the need for skill building, employment, and engagement in the area, which faces high unemployment and low income relative to other London boroughs.

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

Yes, addressing energy/fuel poverty and increasing opportunity in the neighbourhood is a strong and explicit motivator behind the intervention, as seen in the intervention’s goals (Q3).

*'''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]]
|
| x
|-
| 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]]
|
| x
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| x
|-
| 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?'''===

It was born out of a Transition Town initiative, TT Brixton, in 2007. There was a specific working group on ‘Buildings and Energy’ whose members (locals with an interest and knowledge about renewable energy) began to meet and discuss possibilities of a local solar project (PATHWAYS_03:8).

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

The benefits are concentrated in the local community, for any individual who wishes to be involved in the project (either by being a shareholder, recipient of community energy efficiency funds, or a youth employed by the project). However, it could be argued that there are larger scale benefits of renewable energy generation regarding climate change mitigation. Additionally, since the intervention has gained attention from, and is working directly with (up to) national-level policy makers, the benefits could be even more widespread, if their influence enables more similar projects.

==='''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
| x
| Transition Town Brixton (community interest company, provided initial platform for the intervention),
Core Brixton Energy team, later the Repowering team (spearheading the intervention, now performing administrative and other organizational tasks)

|-
| For profit entreprises
| x
| Simmons & Simmons (legal advice)
HSBC (tax help)
Southern Solar (installation assistance)

|-
| Local/regional government
| x
|Lambeth Council’s sustainability unit (Running the Low Carbon Zone group)
|-
| Regional organizations
| x
| Various housing boards (i.e. United Residents Housing and the Loughborough Estate Management Board were consulted with, gave permission for the projects )
|-
| National government
| x
| Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (formerly Dpt. Energy and Climate Change), gave Repowering funding from the DECC’s Community Energy Peer Mentoring Fund
Otero was involved in writing national community energy policy
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| x
| Community members (each project is run by a separate community benefit society),
Community non members (participate in outreach events, receive energy advice etc. even if they are not a shareholder)
Other local community groups (helped form the intervention, collaborate with it)
Carbon Leapfrog Charity (enabled initial networking with sustainability professionals)

|}

==='''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.'''===

Enabling configurations for community renewable energy (Stakeholders include the federal government):

The beginning of the UK’s Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program in 2010 created a more friendly environment to small-scale, community-based renewables. This is an indirect impact.

Enabling configurations for community engagement/collaboration (Stakeholders include Lambeth Council and the Brixton team/Repowering):

The local government, Lambeth Council, which had a small group running a Low Carbon Zone, served as an intermediary organization in the beginning, which helped the team organize themselves and contact other relevant groups. The enabling configuration is the connectedness of this Council to various groups in the area. However, this group was small and had minimal capacity.

==='''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 of the intervention from the very beginning. The intervention’s cooperative structure relies upon community engagement in order to function (financial investment, regular meetings, decision-making etc.) and the intervention engages with a wider community base in order to address energy poverty and provide opportunities for employment and learning (Repowering website_home).

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

Each project (BES1, 2, 3) is run by a separate cooperative. Repowering is a community benefit society where decision-making power is horizontally distributed and participatory: “The society is run by its members and a board of directors who come from the local community. Governance of the society is truly democratic as each member has one vote, regardless of the amount they invest” (Repowering website_our model). The larger-picture strategic operations of Repowering and its various projects are run by a full staff team.

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

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

This intervention operates under an inclusive model, since it is a community benefit society, and it reinvests in and engages with the community. However, those who could not afford to invest in the projects would at least be excluded from their financial return.

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

It is necessary to raise capital in order to finance the projects, so this can have exclusionary effects. An impact of this possible exclusion is that only those who are financially capable of investing in the projects are able to receive their benefits (return on investment) and have a formal say (vote) about them. However, the threshold investment to be a member is relatively low (investment pledges for current projects begin at £50), and it is less expensive for a resident to invest than an outsider, so that barrier may not be unsurpassable. Also, the intervention has community workshops and open general meetings, which reduces exclusion. Therefore, exclusion is minimal overall due to open project meetings and community initiatives for those that do not have the means to invest.

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

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

As mentioned, the Transition Town Brixton initiative, which had a specific working group on buildings and energy, triggered the formation of the original community group, ‘Brixton Energy’. There are also a set of broader context conditions which may have triggered the intervention, with the establishment of the FIT scheme likely being influential.

==='''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]])'''===

Municipal level: Various planning and licensing requirements.

National Economic policies: the UK’s Feed-In-Tariff program (enacted in 2010 and cancelled in 2019) was essential for ensuring investor security and therefore the financial viability of the projects.

National Regulatory policies: UK's Fuel Poverty Strategy, UK’s Community Energy Strategy, The Energy Act 2013 (implements the RE Directive), Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009

European Regulatory policies: European Union Renewable Energy Directive 2009, requiring member states to fulfill at least 20% of their total energy needs with renewables by 2020, listed Feed-In-Tariff schemes (such as the one that supported Brixton Energy) as a type of support scheme that could help achieve this target.

Note that only the FIT and the Low Carbon Transition Plan was explicitly mentioned in the documentation (PATHWAYS_03).

==='''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?'''===

There is no single UK constitution, rather a collection of statutes, case law, and other decisions. Under UK law, London is the only city with its own assembly (Greater London Authority Act 1999). Its powers, functions, funding, and responsibilities are determined by laws passed by Parliament. The London Assembly (including Lambeth borough) has limited power over transport, environment, and housing, among others. Lambeth Council’s authority/responsibility to regulate renewable energy projects may be linked with the constitutional powers and responsibilities given to the London Assembly, however more in-depth research is needed to determine this.

==='''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.)'''===

Out of necessity, project proponents interacted a great deal with both local and national governments. According to Otero, relations with the Local Lambeth Council and the national authorities were tough and frustrating, but necessary in order for the intervention to function.

Although the Council’s sustainability unit was supportive, it was under-funded and had limited capacity: "They [Council] put good ideas and engaged people in a tower, and locked them up and we basically found our way to the crevices and dug away with our fingernails to get through the door. It was really tough." Meanwhile, project proponents’ perception of national government was decidedly less positive. The national policy landscape surrounding community energy was initially non-existent, so Otero helped write several national policies: “They put us on every board you could imagine, they gave us MBEs, and then changed their minds! I wrote policy for all three governments, they would listen and say yes yes yes, and then pull the teeth out of it that held the whole thing together, put the pretty pictures that we got on there, then launch it and then not give anybody anything.” Additionally, the national government was seen as somewhat of an adversary, since it made several unfavourable policy changes (FIT reduction than cancellation, cancellation of the seed enterprise investment scheme, and unfavourable re-definition of cooperatives).

These views of and interactions with both national and local governments may have ultimately supported the intervention in an unexpected way: “Since the policy was so unstable, we had to continuously look for new innovation. The only reason why we came up with all these innovations is because I wasn't going to go out like that! What, because the government changes, and everything is changing, I'm going to roll over and die? No. You gotta come up with better solutions.” (Otero interview)

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

The intervention is financed by a cooperative business model. Community members buy shares in the cooperative, which then funds the purchase and installation of renewable energy assets. The returns from these assets (aka from generating energy) are given back to the shareholders, and/or invested in a community fund (for community energy projects). (Repowering website_our model)

The FIT program was a significant contributor to the financial viability of the projects in this intervention. It provided a guaranteed return on investment for a period of 20 years, which then made investing more attractive. While current projects are not impacted by the FIT phase-out, it will force Repowering to find other funding sources to rely on (PATHWAYS_03:16).
Some examples, from BE1 and 3 project manager, Andre Pinho: “ 1) finding seed money through different funding schemes and grants, knowing that these will eventually dry up; or 2) finding councils and local initiatives with money to invest in Repowering London’s expertise.” (PATHWAYS_03:16)
The intervention has also received funding from various sources, such as the previously mentioned Community Energy Peer Mentoring Fund.

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

As mentioned, the FIT program was phased out rapidly and then cancelled, which makes the financing scheme for future projects less viable (since the export tariff and feed-in tariff won’t exist). Other regulatory supports (e.g. seed investment scheme) were also cancelled. Therefore many of the initial enabling conditions for the intervention no longer exist.

'''''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'''

The volatility and eventual cancellation of the national FIT program was a central challenge for the intervention (PATHWAYS_03:16) (see part d). Same with the seed investment scheme cancellation and the re-definition of cooperative such that Repowering was required to identify as a Community Benefit Society instead. Local government regulations (like required planning permissions) were also reported to be an obstacle (PATHWAYS_03:10).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Legitimacy “Obstacle - legitimacy”
This is a novel intervention in a (low income) inner-city context and needed to be proven in order to be seen as a legitimate business model. The newness created investor uncertainty, see part d. Gaining planning permission for the installations from local councils required convincing them that they were a good idea, without any proof, for BES1 (PATHWAYS_03:17).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

A rapidly changing national political landscape reduced trust in federal support for interventions like Repowering, and consequently reduced the faith of local authorities in Brixton’s success. See part d. Engaging the community also proved difficult at first, since the Repowering team had limited experience with it (PATHWAYS_03:10).

*'''d. Finances'''

One notable obstacle was the difficulty raising funds (£58,000) for BES1 from community members. Since it was a new project, with no track record, individuals were hesitant to invest. Additionally, while many made pledges, this proved not to be a reliable indicator of actual financial support. Once BES1 was established, it was easier to find investors for the others because the community had more trust in the organization and had seen an instance of success (PATHWAYS_03:13). Another financial obstacle was the need to work quickly to meet deadlines imposed by the FIT program. The FIT program drastically lowered its tariff rates in early 2012, so Brixton rushed to accredit BES1 under the scheme before this happened. Otherwise, the project would have been guaranteed much lower returns over its 20 year lifetime (PATHWAYS_03:13). In addition, there are regulatory barriers to the community energy model because the current energy framework requires the projects to sell their energy to big suppliers at wholesale costs. Becoming a licensed independent energy supplier themselves so that they could sell directly to customers is very costly (PATHWAYS_03:19).

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

Other identified barriers included navigating “the legal aspects of the scheme” and “defining the company structure and statutes” (PATHWAYS_03:10).

== 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. Unstable/cancelled FIT program
|Some reported options include: Repowering looking for private partners to invest in community projects, and also applying for Repowering to become a licensed electricity provider (PATHWAYS_03:16). There is also a recent pilot project for a peer-to-peer energy trading system in Brixton to see how decentralized energy production could be financially viable in a post FIT landscape (Peer-to-peer Energy Trading in Brixton).
|-
| 2. Initial difficulty gaining trust and navigating planning permissions from local council, stemmed from a lack of proof of concept, creating legitimacy concerns
|Work was done to improve relations/trust with Lambeth council, and Lambeth council helped them navigate through planning permissions. “The main hurdle is often convincing the council’s corporate risk and legal teams. This is best overcome by demonstrating strong fundamentals for a project: financial acumen, social deliverables and resident support. Commitments to social cohesion, education, and reducing fuel poverty are mandated in every political party. Showing that [a] project helps the council to address these issues can bring council support and partnership” (Otero interview Brixton Energy).
They also proved that the business model was viable with BES1: “The greater local exposure to the technology along with Repowering’s positive reputation and credibility through earlier demonstrations further benefited local acceptance and funding for the projects.” (PATHWAYS_03:18)
|-
| 3. Community engagement
|They improved over time by making efforts to listen to local needs and priorities, and got support from the experienced Transition Town group (PATHWAYS_03:11). Engaging residents (youth) with solar panel-making workshops increased engagement with the overall project. Offering payment for their internship program increased participation. It was also essential to engage with "Estate Mamas", middle aged women who lived there and were engaged in the community. "By supporting them, we could count on them with our projects and provide for the community. That is the only thing I have really learned and they were my greatest teachers." (Otero interview)
|-
|}

== 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.'''===

The initiative has resulted in economic gains for the community, although their extent/significance is not clear. These include a 3% return on investment (mainly financed by the FIT program), hiring locals to assist with installations, and training young people in paid internship positions (Repowering website).
The general objectives of the initiative regarding sustainability, as listed in Q1, were to a) start generating renewable energy in Brixton, b) increase resilience by reducing dependence on big energy companies, and c) use retained profits to educate residents about energy efficiency. To date, Repowering has made progress towards these goals and achieved the following: 532kWp of installed solar capacity, 447,358 kWh electricity generated annually, avoided 114 tonnes of GHG emissions annually, and has raised £154,500 for communities to spend on related energy initiatives like efficiency measures (Repowering website_home).
Objectives regarding inequality include a) tackling fuel poverty, and b), providing training and employment for local people. Progress on these general objectives is not easily measurable, however Repowering has thus far, engaged 123 paid interns and employed a handful of locals for the installation of each project. It is unclear what percentage of Repowering’s full time staff are local. The community energy fund amount of £154,500 will have gone towards reducing energy poverty, with unknown (but expectedly positive) impacts.

== 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.'''

BES1 was the first intervention of its kind (inner-city renewable energy cooperative) in London (PATHWAYS_03:23). The intervention built off of the Transition Town movement/network, specifically Transition Town Brixton. The intervention also benefited from various community initiatives: Lambeth Council’s Green Community Champions initiative (iv: visibility and identity by providing a platform for Brixton Energy to hold meetings and build connections) (PATHWAYS_03:8), and the Hyde Farm Climate Action Network in London (reported as “establishing links with other sustainability initiatives”) (PATHWAYS_03:9). However, since it was a unique intervention, most specific learning was up to the proponents: "It wasn't like we got an answer from other people and they helped us out. It was the other way around. We trail-blazed the whole sector." (Otero interview)

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

In its development, Brixton Energy was reportedly advised by other successful models of small-scale community renewable energy, i.e. Ovesco in Sussex. The initiative’s location (inner-city) and business model were unique, but they were still able to benefit from practical advice (mechanism iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support) (PATHWAYS_03:8). However, according to Otero, this advice was minimal and not extremely helpful. Rather, an individual from another company shared a template of how to set up community energy and introduced proponents to other community energy groups in a series of three meetings. However, most learning came directly from listening to community members and through interactions with specific individuals at Lambeth council’s sustainability unit (Otero interview).

=== 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'''

Nothing has been reported on this regarding experiences outside of the intervention, however, BES2 and BES3, and later projects have all been at least partial replications of BES1 and each other. They used accumulated experience to form a systematic project design and management process, which reduced trial and error and sped up the process for later projects. Learning which promoted replicability reportedly included both hard skills, like how to handle the technology, to soft skills, such as how to work effectively with the local council to speed up permitting processes, and how to engage with community members (PATHWAYS_03:18).

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

No reports on specific knowledge gained from peer-to-peer learning with Ovesco and other community energy projects , other than “practical advice” (PATHWAYS_3:10). As Otero indicated, there was not too much peer learning due to the project’s trailblazing nature.

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

Some reported areas of learning during the implementation of BES1 included: project management and legal issues, energy and financial projections, and supplier contacts (PATHWAYS_03:9). Other important learning experiences included understanding the community members’ priorities and interests (for example, door-to-door campaigns revealed that reducing electricity bill costs was important) and that the key to community engagement was the co-production of ideas such that residents felt involved and empowered (PATHWAYS_03:11).

=== 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?'''===

According to the PATHWAYS documentation, Repowering reportedly adapted the model of previous community energy initiatives in the UK to consider its inner-city location and a different financial model (PATHWAYS_3:10). However, Otero reported that the project was entirely unique, and therefore not adapted to the circumstances but entirely built from the bottom up to suit them.

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

Overcoming (or currently handling) obstacles such as the FIT program, via experimenting with new business models such as peer-to-peer trading, highlights the need to be adaptive and resilient in the face of national policy instability. Gaining trust, familiarity, and legitimacy with the community and local government likely helped speed up the learning and implementation process per replicated project (the first project reportedly took 8-9 months, the second 3 months, and the third 1 month (PATHWAYS_3:18)).

==='''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 specific tools were used, however the team has regular meetings and structures for reflection and learning. The team has Monday meetings where they discuss issues, raise questions, and everyone has three minutes to explain what they're doing and highlight any problems they're having, whether it is a systemic issue or a personal team issue. “This way we can lance any boils together once a week.” Then monthly, they do a deep dive to go into any problem areas. Then the volunteer directors will come in and scrutinize any issues that have been raised and spend a couple days working through them (Otero interview).

== 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]'''

Yes, replicability has been central to the intervention, since BES2 and BES3, and later projects have all been at least partial replications of BES1 and each other (PATHWAYS_03:18). Suggestions have also been made by the operators of the peer-to-peer trading pilot (EDF Energy and University College London) that the new business model could be scaled up in the UK and in Colombia (Future energy systems; Transactive energy).

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

The projects have all been replicated in Lambeth borough, London. Additionally, the intention of forming Repowering out of the Brixton Energy initiative was to be able to replicate and scale up the community energy solutions. It currently supports similar projects throughout London (PATHWAYS_03:10). The newer peer-to-peer model is seen as transferable to communities in dense urban areas worldwide (Future energy systems) .

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

Project proponents, the press, and actors in the peer-to-peer pilot.

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

As of 2014: “Repowering believes that the viable penetration of community energy (to its estimated potential of powering 1 million homes in the UK by 2020 (DECC, 2014) will require professionalization; an operating body that can develop at a larger scale; and the streamlining of processes (both community and energy aspects)” (PATHWAYS_03:16).
From this, limits to transferability could be: a) a lack of a more powerful organizational body to coordinate upscaling, and b) learning/implementation processes are still too experimental/messy. The latter of these two limits may have been more recently overcome, since the model has been replicated more times in a variety of contexts within London.

==='''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> '''===

PATHWAYS’ case study report of Brixton had a section called “Replication, learning, and scaling up”. It contained details on how the model was replicated into many projects, and how accumulated learning (about soft and hard project aspects) contributed towards a more systematic process each time. These learning processes were not described in depth.

Regarding how Repowering has made its experience accessible to citymakers, it was very involved in local and national politics - visited by federal energy and climate change ministers and “Through its visibility and praised success, Repowering London has gained access to relevant decision-making processes both at local and national levels. Besides its operational relationship with various councils, Repowering London members have regularly been consulted on national debates about community energy, which additionally promoted urban community energy in the political sphere …” (PATHWAYS_03:16). Repowering has also historically been involved in the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change’s Community Energy Contact Group, which aimed to identify barriers and solutions for community energy (PATHWAYS_03:16). However, recall that Otero’s reported experience participating in policy writing was frustrating and that the final policy outcomes were not satisfactory.

Repowering also offers its professional services to facilitate other community energy projects (via legal, structural, financial, marketing base to co-produce similar initiatives with community groups), however: “In terms of collective learning and information sharing, there is an on-going debate within Repowering about what the initiative is happy to open-source, hence share openly and freely, and what is considered to be worth protecting and retaining as exclusive expertise (Pinho, Interview)” (PATHWAYS_03:19).

==='''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”?)'''===

Yes, see Q31a. All documented “replications” or cases of support (or perhaps better called “iterations of various community energy projects”) were in the same urban context (inner-city London neighbourhoods). However, the intervention has gotten a lot of good press and political recognition (PATHWAYS_03:16), and so it has likely inspired other projects.
In addition to their own projects, “Repowering has been acting as ‘mentor’ for a number community groups across London eager to replicate Brixton energy’s model in their local areas (Rosendale Energy, Streatham Power, Vauxhall Energy, Hackney Energy and En10ergy)” (PATHWAYS_03:18).

== 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?

There is no strong evidence for durable structural learning. As mentioned, project proponents participated in creating community energy policy, which was "toothless" according to Otero, but may have generally contributed to a national discussion about sustainability and justice. Additionally, Repowering proponents created an intermediary policy body called Community Energy England.

Otherwise, the experiences from Repowering are leading into new initiatives like the Energy Garden (https://www.energygarden.org.uk/), which aims to integrate with more actors and in inter-city partnerships. (Otero interview)

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

The qualities and capabilities of the core Repowering team were particular enabling factors, since they were highly knowledgeable about renewable energy, passionate, and motivated (PATHWAYS_03:8). These personal assets, along with a constructive team dynamic, enabled the intervention to successfully emerge. As explained by Otero: "Entrepreneurs are a very specific breed of people, who deal with loss and failure regularly and use it as fuel for success. They will tell you, that until you have lost, you will never succeed. And the successes you will have prior to losing are not worth the success. The only way to change a sector is to be willing to fail, to pivot, and to change throughout."

==='''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?'''===

Using accumulated experience, partnerships and community enthusiasm to achieve replication and upscaling aspirations amidst national policy instability.

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!

== 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]]

Community led affordable housing in Brussels

2021-03-15T16:13:32Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings| '''A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings''']].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Visit [https://cltb.be/en/contact-3/| their website] for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

Community Land Trust Brussels operates within the Brussels Capital Region of Belgium (at the neighbourhood scale, especially the Anderlecht, Molenbeek, and Schaarbeek municipalities, with completed and planned housing projects all over the Brussels Capital area).

CLTB is social real estate developer that builds affordable housing projects on collectively-owned land in Brussels for people with limited means. It purchases land and engages with future residents and community partners to co-create affordable housing (CLTB website_ what do we do).

==='''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.]'''===

Housing

==='''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]'''===

Provide decent housing (quality, sustainable, secure, affordable) to Brussels residents; increase community cohesion; empower residents to gain more control over shaping their communities (CLTB website_vision and mission).

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

Associations for affordable and sustainable public housing in Brussels first learned about the Community Land Trust model at a convention in 2008. They visited an example in the US in 2009. In 2010, a group of 15 associations created and signed a charter for the establishment of a CLT in Brussels. After a feasibility study supported by the Brussels regional government between 2011-2012, it was formally supported by the Housing Minister and given a grant to begin operations for the upcoming fall. The CLT’s first and only building so far (Quai de Mariemont in Molenbeek) was completed in September 2015. Currently, three developments are in construction and five more are planned. (CLTB website_our history).

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

Hybrid governance mode - the idea and motivation came from non-government actors, but it was made a reality via municipal governmental support and institutionalization (inclusion of the CLT model in the housing bill of the Brussels Capital Region and making the CLT an operator of the Housing Alliance investment program for new affordable housing) (CLTB website_our history). The CLT and its associated foundation have both residents, civil society, and public officials on their boards (CLTB website_ our 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> '''===

It fills all of the criteria for desirable WP5 interventions. It is an interesting example of hybrid governance, where non-governmental actors sought to serve a need for communities and local governments empowered and adopted their initiative. It is also one of the first CLT models implemented in Europe. One reservation about this intervention is that it is explicitly focused on justice, whereas environmental sustainability is less important (although still present).

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

CLTB website and project materials from the Interreg program’s Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities project. Most information is from the CLTB website (CLTB website) and several SHICC case study documents (Interreg_01; Interreg_02) and CLTB annual reports ( Interreg_04 and Interreg_05). Additional information was provided by CLTB co-founder and current coordinator, Geert De Pauw, during a personal interview.

== 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).'''

CLTB was studied in the EU’s Interreg project, Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities (Sept 2017-Sept 2020), which supports and studies four CLT’s in Europe (Brussels, Ghent, Lille, and London). SHICC aims to “‘prove the concept’, create a supportive local, regional and national policy, funding and regulatory environment for CLTs and build a movement across the region” (SHICC Project_home).

*'''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]], [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]], [[Right to housing]].

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

No.

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

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

Intervention proponents have been vocal about the lack of affordable decent housing for low-income people in Brussels, particularly due to a small number of public social housing units and rapidly increasing housing prices between 2000 and 2010 (CLTB website_our history). This problematization comes from the low-income groups themselves, since they are engaged with the various associations and CLTB to express their needs (De Pauw).

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

Yes. Justice is central to their vision and mission: the intervention provides decent housing and empowerment to marginalized, low-income groups by co-creating their communities (see Q3).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

This intervention was initiated by activists from various housing and neighbourhood associations in the Brussels Capital area (Buurthuis Bonnevie, a community center, and CIRE solidarity savings group were listed in particular). After this initial interest was sparked, a smaller group of actors (unnamed representatives from this group of associations) was involved in CLT-specific learning and research. More than 15 associations signed onto the charter for the establishment of a Community Land Trust in Brussels in 2010. Afterwards the local government became more involved and the intervention took off (CLTB website_ our history).

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

Low-income residents of Brussels, communities in which projects are implemented, housing-insecure individuals in other cities (if CLTB is able to prove the concept and inspire more CLTs).

==='''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
| x
| Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| x
| The Community Land Trust Brussels manages and leads the intervention (CLTB website_our governance)
Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects

|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
| x
| Housing fund Brussels (cooperative society) provides mortgages to the prospective buyers (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| For profit entreprises
| x
| Various private firms (i.e. Architects, contractors, etc.) provide their services, expertise, or financial support, or act as a member of the CTLB general assembly (CLTB website)
|-
| Local/regional government
| x
| The Housing Minister of the Brussels Capital Regional Government provides 2m eu/year in funding (CLTB website_support)
Public service members sit on board of CLT (CLTB website_our governance)
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
| x
| EU Interreg project provides funding
EU Urban Innovative Actions program provides funding
(CLTB website_support)
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| x
| Public Utility Foundation CLTB purchases and owns land which is managed by the CLTB not for profit (CLTB website_our governance)
Public Utility Foundation 4 Wings Foundation funding support (CLTB website_support)
Residents of housing projects (current and future) sit on CLT board and participate in co-creation (CLTB website_CLT model)
|}

==='''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.'''===

Firstly, the ability of many (15) community associations to self-organize and present a united appeal for the establishment of the CLTB was very important. Second, the productive and early engagement of the housing associations with the local government of Brussels was crucial. It resulted in formal approval and funding by the Brussels government needed to launch the intervention. Third, early involvement (via workshops, meetings, etc) of the target group in need of housing was very important - it allowed CLTB to see that their proposal was an answer to the target group's needs, and it gave a sense of legitimacy by facilitating this expression of need (confirmed by De Pauw).

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

Citizens, as members of the various housing associations, inspired and organized the intervention. They continue to be a central actor in the co-creation of the projects and residents make up one third of the CLT board members (CLTB website_ our governance). This is a highly participatory intervention. Future residents work together to guide the development of their dwellings, and current residents are responsible for their buildings’ management.

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

Community-based decision making in occurs in different forms. The CLTB NPO is directed by a mix of building owners, prospective buyers, CLT members, associations, neighbours, and representatives from the government. For each housing project, future and current residents have high levels of responsibility; their voices are central to decision making. There is also an annual general assembly where CLT members meet (active members have certain voting rights).

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

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

Since the intervention is so community-centered and prioritizes inclusion, very few (marginalized) social groups are excluded. However, individuals must meet certain admission conditions, the same as those for normal municipal social housing admittance, to be given a CLTB residence spot (Interreg_02:2). Therefore, these other groups are excluded (i.e. medium income groups, young people with unstable employment, elderly) (Interreg_02:9). Also, there is currently a long waiting list, so no new candidates can be registered (CLTB website_get a CLTB home).

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

Admission conditions are necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable are given priority, as there is excess demand for CLTB housing. Outcomes are unclear and there are no reports about work being done that cater to groups who do not meet admission conditions. Although there are other ways to participate, such as becoming a member or volunteer with CLTB.

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

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

Brussels’ housing crisis in the early 2000s (increased rent prices, not enough social housing, policy focus on homeownership) spurred action from local associations, which then snowballed into the BLT intervention (CLTB_our history).

==='''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]])'''===

Unfavourable housing and rental policies at the regional and national level were presumably influential in the motivation to establish the CLTB, since they were/are offering inadequate support for lower income demographics. Nationally, housing policies have largely benefited homeowners over private renters, in particular those in social housing (i.e. national housing budgets are mostly allocated to private owners, and significantly less is allocated to social housing and the rental market) (OECD paper). Social housing has been placed under the responsibility of Belgium’s regional government since 1980. While there are regional and national plans to increase the stock, there remains big social housing shortfalls (Social housing in Europe; Facets of housing).

Some specific policies include: the Brussels Housing Code, within which the CLT was entrenched in 2013 by the Brussels Capital Region (Regulatory policy type), and the Region’s ‘Alliance Habitat’ investment plan, which gives 2 million euros per year in subsidies to the CLTB (Economic policy type).
Low-carbon building standards set in 2015 by the Brussels Capital Region are influential, since they require all new construction to meet a certain passive building standard. This includes CLTB projects (Interreg_01:5).

==='''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 Belgian Federal State has three regions, one of which is the Brussels Capital Region. The regions are responsible for providing affordable housing, which has enabled and motivated the Brussels Capital Region to be highly involved and supportive of the CLT intervention (Interreg_02:1).

==='''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.)'''===

The hybrid intervention is possible due to positive interactions between housing associations and the Brussels Capital Region government. The associations were eager to engage with the government to quickly institutionalize the intervention, rather than attempting to grow it on their own. And the regional government (a social democracy) was responsive to their interests, conducting a feasibility study upon their request (before adopting it later on) (CLTB website_our history).

Compared to colleagues implementing CLTs in other places, CLTB proponents feel lucky that there is a close relationship between civil society groups and local authorities in Brussels. In Brussels there is a strong and well-organized civil society, especially in the housing sector, and there are a lot of innovative community housing association groups that receive government funding. One reason for this government-civil sector collaboration is that BCR is a small territory with the same capacity as the other two regions in Belgium. Housing is dependent on the city and thus supports close relationships between civil society groups and authorities (De Pauw).

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

Financial assistance in the start up phase included: a 150,000 euro feasibility study (from the Regional government), 10,000 from the RénovAssistance Foundation, support from the King Baudouin Foundation for the first years of operation expenses, and subsidized jobs funded by the Region.

Current financial arrangements include an annual 2 million euro subsidy from the Region, which allows the CLT foundation to purchase land and contribute towards 40% of building construction. The other 60% is derived from households’ mortgages (provided from Brussels Housing Fund). CLTB’s operational budget is mainly funded through various grants, membership fees (10euros per month), ground leases (10euros per household per month), crowd funding, and donations. The financial arrangements listed above are more complex than this and are further detailed in the SHICC 2019 report (Interreg_02).

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

No.

'''''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'''

Because the intervention is supported through a regulatory framework, there are few major obstacles posed to implementation. One barrier, however, is the lack of funds provided for non-residential spaces (like gardens or community spaces) in the Regional subsidies. These components are important to the CLT’s concept for thriving communities (Interreg_02:5).

Another implementation barrier includes the administrative delays to win public tenders, obtain planning permissions, and build new housing, leading to subsequent delay in the construction phase (Interreg_04: 3; Interreg_05: 5). This has resulted in some prospective residents waiting for years to receive housing.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

n/a It has legitimacy by being linked with government support and rooted in community needs.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

''n/a Demand exceeds supply. This is a popular intervention. ''

*'''d. Finances'''

Sustainable and reliable funding to support growing operations and more developments presumably poses the biggest obstacle to CLTB. It is heavily reliant on public funding, which could dry up if political priorities change (Interreg_02:9). Additionally, the current staff capacity is being stretched thinly and funding for more positions will need to be acquired in order to handle upscaled program implementation. Finally, as operations grow, the capacities of CLTB’s partner associations will also be stretched, and will therefore also need increased funding (Interreg_02:9).

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

Community building - which is a major dimension of the project - among prospective residents (before moving in the neighborhood) is more difficult for large communities, including people still on the waiting list (candidate resident) and people who are not yet engaged in a concrete project (Interreg_04: 4).

== 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. Inability to fund non-residential spaces
| So far, the non-residential spaces that have been created were funded via higher lease costs to renters. But the Region may begin to support these spaces if the CLTB demonstrates that its pilot projects have sustainable business models (Interreg_02:5,9).
|-
| 2. Heavy reliance on (a single source of) public funding
| Suggestions to overcome this include looking for different investment (from private actors or citizens), or funding campaigns (Interreg_02:9).
|-
| 3. Stretched capacity of CLT staff and partner associations
| CLTB is financing more full-time staff positions via various charitable foundations (Interreg_02:9). No reports on how CLTB partners will increase their capacity.
|-
| 4. Administrative delays to obtain planning permits and build new housing.
| It was not possible to speed up the administrative procedures. However, while some prospective residents did not yet receive housing, they have actively engaged in building community in their future neighborhood (Interreg_04: 3). In that sense these delays did not discourage prospective residents nor undermine community-building processes.
|-
| 5. Difficulties in building community in large groups of prospective (candidate) residents.
| In 2017, for the second time, CLTB has organized events allowing candidate-residents to meet and get to know each other, as well as to begin engaging in projects. In collaboration with other local organizations, thematic workshops have been organized (i.e. energy, finances, house reparations). In 2016, within the framework of the project “Co-create”, CLT has experimented with a new tool called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) for community building.
|}

== 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.'''===

From Interreg_02: CLT has 2 completed projects (9 units inhabited since 2015 and 32 units inhabited since the end of 2019), 4 projects in construction, and 5 projects being studied, equalling 164 units in development with eventual resale prices at 25-50% of the market price. It has 600 members (400 candidate housing owners, 170 supporting members, and 30 nonprofit organizations).

Since it is more focused on social sustainability, the intervention has so far not demonstrated substantial outcomes regarding environmental sustainability. The first completed project was built according to the Brussels Capital Region’s low-carbon standards (Interreg_01:5). However, this was required by law and not motivated by the project itself. Several of the planned projects include “green” features like community gardens and other communal green spaces, and one in particular is planned to be built within the upcoming Tivoli Green City quarter of Brussels.

== 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.'''

CLTB builds from experiences in experiments for alternative affordable housing in Brussels such as the L'Espoir project (one of the first passive solar, energy efficient housing buildings in Brussels, housing 14 low income migrant families since 2009), and a solidarity savings group in 2004 that allows low-income families to pool funds to purchase a house (CLTB website_our history).

In more detail from interview with De Pauw:

The L’Espoir project was successful, but CLTB proponents learned that this kind of thing is not possible without public support (subsidies, grants). L'Espoir started with nothing and spent a lot of effort trying to get support. There is a need for public money from the beginning. At several points through the project they almost stopped due to lack of funding. This is especially problematic for participants because it becomes quite risky. CLTB proponents also wanted to find a more sustainable way of using public grants, since L'Espoir residents who want to sell their home can do it at any price and retain any project, which is not sustainable. They discovered the CLT model as a way of introducing non-speculative elements.

Regarding the saving groups, proponents such as De Pauw had already been working with CIRE, who was running the savings group. These groups worked well, except when house prices increased. Therefore, proponents were interested in a more sustainable model that could be affordable for low-income groups.

In summary, CLTB drew lessons from what worked and from what couldn't be solved e.g. the way participation is organized in preparation for projects is very much inspired by what was done in L'Espoir and the saving groups.

Especially within the CLTB, projects learn from each other: “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)

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

Housing association members first learned about the CLT model from a convention on Housing Cooperatives in Lyon, France. They then visited a successful CLT example - the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont (CLTB website_our history).
The CLTB is also part of the SHICC EU-funded project, which aims to have a broad movement of CLTs across Europe and connects CLTB with the network of other CLTs. The project financially supports the selected CLTs and provides some knowledge resources (This support hits all four types of TRANSIT’s empowerment mechanisms).

In more detail from De Pauw interview:

Champlain was essential for CLTB success.
"They helped us with everything we wanted … When writing lease contracts we could use a lot of their documents, experience (despite being in a different context) and we had a lot of exchange with them and they were really supportive so that was really important, and still is. At least once a year we call them with a question. It was also a way of showing that what we wanted was possible and not just an idea."
Champlain proponents also came to Brussels several times and their CEO did a video message at a CLTB press conference, which was very important.

=== 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'''

As previously mentioned, one crucial piece of knowledge from the L’Espoir project was that significant public investment is needed to make affordable housing possible at a larger scale. Although they were able to raise funds to cover the reduced contribution of low-income residents, this was seen as an unsustainable model in the long term.

From the solidarity savings groups, the intervention learned that alternative savings systems cannot overcome high housing prices, which dissuaded them from adopting a similar approach (CLTB website_our history).

CLTB learned from internal reflections while replicating projects about their participatory procedures. In the beginning, they reproduced what had been done in L'Espoir, and actively involved participants from the start, when they bought the land or even before. They stopped after the pilot projects because of numerous risks and difficulties associated with building in Brussels, e.g. having to deal with a builder bankruptcy, having to wait two years for building permission, etc.. Despite being interesting to engage from the start, proponents decided it was too risky and instead compose the groups once they have the building permit (De Pauw).

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

The specific nature and content of what the CLTB drew from during their visit to the Champlain Housing Trust is not clear in the project documentation. This is the only mention of the “partnership”/”transfer”: “In September 2009, four members of this group were invited … to participate at an international study visit to the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont, a CLT that had just won a United Nations World Habitat Award. After a week, they returned to Brussels, more than ever convinced that the CLT model might be what they were looking for” (CLTB website_our history). The CLTB did adopt Champlain’s governance model, whereby the board of trustees is composed of one third current/future residents, one third civil society, and one third public officials (Interreg_02:1). The CLTB also adopted Champlain’s resale mechanism (Interreg_01:7).

However, the interview with De Pauw revealed the large amount of learning and exchange between Champlain and CLTB. See Q26b.

Regarding SHICC, their project website resources include: financial guides, local advocacy toolkit, and case studies of all the participating CLTs.

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

None specifically reported, but since CLTs are a relatively novel and complex intervention, there was likely a big learning curve. Areas of acquired knowledge could include legal aspects and procedural elements: “The last two years, we invested a lot in strengthening our organization, developing legal models, procedures, etc.” (CLTB website_our history).

=== 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 context of Brussels is characterized by high housing prices and low volume of social housing stock. The previous learned content may have caused the intervention to seek significant public investment in order to help it prosper at a wider scale (L’Espoir project) AND help the Regional government fulfill its duty towards social housing. The observed necessity to reduce cost of housing, and not just pool funds to buy expensive housing (solidarity savings groups), may have caused CLTB to source its land from a Regeneration scheme that allows municipalities to sell it below market price - aka the CLTB looked into strategies to lower its costs wherever possible in order to make the housing products more affordable.

Finally, the Champlain Trust model was adapted slightly to fit the Brussels context, for example taking the necessary steps of making it compliant with the relevant laws/policies (e.g. the 2015 low carbon standards). While everything from Champlain needed to be tweaked to fit the Brussels context, it needed less adaptation than one could imagine, despite having a completely different legal system (CLTB is under civil law, Champlain under common law). The major difference, however, was in the initiatives' aims: CLTB needed to accommodate their model for their goal to target lowest income groups. This has required CLTB to adopt a system that is more public than Champlain's to make it accessible. They therefore needed to do a lot of public tendering for architects, builders, etc.. CLTB's pricing system and allocation procedure has also been adapted to reach low-income groups. Additionally, CLTB had more participatory processes than Champlain, since BCR has a rich history of housing association activities (De Pauw).

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

The process of learning and overcoming obstacles is not particularly well-documented in INTERREG project files, but CLTB annual reports contained useful information.

==='''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.'''===

The site visit to Champlain Trust was a particularly important KBA which inspired the CLTB development.
The community building methods called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development), developed by CLTB in the framework of the project “Co-create” and in collaboration with partner organizations and researchers from the Universities of Bruxelles (Interreg_04: 4), further enabled the learning process.

== 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]'''

Yes. The CLTB’s goal is to have many social housing projects created within the Capital Region, and the goal of SHICC project is to create/enable a CLT movement with many replications. The success of the intervention (aka being able to provide decent, affordable housing to those in need) is dependent on it being scalable.

In the section “communicate with our members and with external actors” (Interreg_05: 21), CLTB aims to draw public attention to the project, thereby clarifying its identity for the public, and become a (European) reference for CLT models.

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

Urban contexts within the Brussels Capital Region and North-Western Europe in general, which SHICC has claimed to be in the midst of a housing affordability crisis (Interreg_03).

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

CLTB proponents and SHICC project.

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

None recorded - the project documentation and intervention documentation have an optimistic perspective on CLT transferability.

A possible limit to transferability of the CLT model is that more public funding is needed to meet the needs of low-income groups than those with greater means. Therefore, if this funding weren’t available in other contexts, the CLTB’s aim of helping the most vulnerable residents would be less achievable. While a CLT is possible without their level of public support, it would indeed be more complicated and projects would probably have to change their target group. For example, there are a few middle-class co-housing groups in Belgium that self-label as CLTs, without use of public money (De Pauw).

==='''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 learning process has not been very well-recorded in Interreg project documentation. This documentation has a promotional feel to it, and it mostly describes how the CLTB currently functions. However, the learning process has been well recorded in the CLTB annual reports, which describe current and upcoming projects, their outcomes, and any difficulties and possible solutions to address them.

Regarding how CLTB has made its more general experience accessible to citymakers, it reports various outreach and learning opportunities, see Q33.

==='''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”?)'''===

From the CLTB website: “Since its creation at the end of 2012, the CLTB, the first CLT of Europe, has received widespread interest from local authorities, associations, foundations, international institutions, academics from various European countries (France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Sweden,…). We have already welcomed several delegations and taken part in numerous events abroad. In this way, we are contributing to the model’s distribution on a European and global scale.”

CLTB has improved its communication tools (i.e. social network, website, brochures etc.) and has participated in many international gatherings, especially in Belgium and France. This includes, among others, presentations given at the housing cooperative society in Rennes (Fr), at the members of the European project “Urbamonde,” and at the “Collectif Goed” cooperative project in Anvers (Bel) (Interreg_05:21).

Actual demonstrations of direct transferability can be seen between individual CLTB housing projects in Brussels, which directly learn from each other (see Q26a). In a less direct sense, proponents have seen the increase in new CLT’s since 2010 when the CLTB was getting started and few had yet heard of the model. These CLTs have been successfully implemented in many different contexts because of the model's flexibility and answers many current issues of land, gentrification, and housing crises that are on top of the agenda. A lot of the model's success comes from people looking for alternatives for these issues. Regarding flexibility, it has several elements that can be combined in different ways: it has been used in urban and rural contexts, small and big scales, with or without public funding, and has been initiated by grassroots organizations or governments. However, CLTB proponents question whether these replications are true community land trusts, since many have a low level of participation (De Pauw). An interesting takeaway here is that the model’s flexibility enables transferability, but can dilute the initial aims of the intervention regarding actively engaging and serving the most needy citizens.

For example, in France the CLT model is not bottom-up: federal law was changed to make it possible and projects are initiated by municipalities where the community aspect is often forgotten. However it still includes the main elements of a CLT (separation of land and the building, anti-speculation formulas)(De Pauw).

== 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?

CLTB helped raise a discussion on public land policy and the idea that it should be used in a sustainable way rather than being sold on the markets. This is a real debate at a government level, as well. Additionally, approaches to co-creating housing may be increasing as a result of CLTB, since other more established housing organizations are also giving importance to resident participation. “These are things I think we contributed to change the mindset of”(De Pauw).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

Hybrid governance can be a very successful way of establishing an intervention because it gets the ideas, legitimacy, and motivation from the people and the funding and institutional support from the government. However, interventions sharing the CLTB’s aims seem more context-bound than non-government led interventions because government priorities and resources vary widely.

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!

== 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.
|}

Community led affordable housing in Brussels

2021-03-15T16:12:59Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings| '''A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings''']].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Visit [cltb.be/en/contact-3| their website] for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

Community Land Trust Brussels operates within the Brussels Capital Region of Belgium (at the neighbourhood scale, especially the Anderlecht, Molenbeek, and Schaarbeek municipalities, with completed and planned housing projects all over the Brussels Capital area).

CLTB is social real estate developer that builds affordable housing projects on collectively-owned land in Brussels for people with limited means. It purchases land and engages with future residents and community partners to co-create affordable housing (CLTB website_ what do we do).

==='''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.]'''===

Housing

==='''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]'''===

Provide decent housing (quality, sustainable, secure, affordable) to Brussels residents; increase community cohesion; empower residents to gain more control over shaping their communities (CLTB website_vision and mission).

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

Associations for affordable and sustainable public housing in Brussels first learned about the Community Land Trust model at a convention in 2008. They visited an example in the US in 2009. In 2010, a group of 15 associations created and signed a charter for the establishment of a CLT in Brussels. After a feasibility study supported by the Brussels regional government between 2011-2012, it was formally supported by the Housing Minister and given a grant to begin operations for the upcoming fall. The CLT’s first and only building so far (Quai de Mariemont in Molenbeek) was completed in September 2015. Currently, three developments are in construction and five more are planned. (CLTB website_our history).

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

Hybrid governance mode - the idea and motivation came from non-government actors, but it was made a reality via municipal governmental support and institutionalization (inclusion of the CLT model in the housing bill of the Brussels Capital Region and making the CLT an operator of the Housing Alliance investment program for new affordable housing) (CLTB website_our history). The CLT and its associated foundation have both residents, civil society, and public officials on their boards (CLTB website_ our 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> '''===

It fills all of the criteria for desirable WP5 interventions. It is an interesting example of hybrid governance, where non-governmental actors sought to serve a need for communities and local governments empowered and adopted their initiative. It is also one of the first CLT models implemented in Europe. One reservation about this intervention is that it is explicitly focused on justice, whereas environmental sustainability is less important (although still present).

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

CLTB website and project materials from the Interreg program’s Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities project. Most information is from the CLTB website (CLTB website) and several SHICC case study documents (Interreg_01; Interreg_02) and CLTB annual reports ( Interreg_04 and Interreg_05). Additional information was provided by CLTB co-founder and current coordinator, Geert De Pauw, during a personal interview.

== 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).'''

CLTB was studied in the EU’s Interreg project, Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities (Sept 2017-Sept 2020), which supports and studies four CLT’s in Europe (Brussels, Ghent, Lille, and London). SHICC aims to “‘prove the concept’, create a supportive local, regional and national policy, funding and regulatory environment for CLTs and build a movement across the region” (SHICC Project_home).

*'''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]], [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]], [[Right to housing]].

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

No.

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

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

Intervention proponents have been vocal about the lack of affordable decent housing for low-income people in Brussels, particularly due to a small number of public social housing units and rapidly increasing housing prices between 2000 and 2010 (CLTB website_our history). This problematization comes from the low-income groups themselves, since they are engaged with the various associations and CLTB to express their needs (De Pauw).

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

Yes. Justice is central to their vision and mission: the intervention provides decent housing and empowerment to marginalized, low-income groups by co-creating their communities (see Q3).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

This intervention was initiated by activists from various housing and neighbourhood associations in the Brussels Capital area (Buurthuis Bonnevie, a community center, and CIRE solidarity savings group were listed in particular). After this initial interest was sparked, a smaller group of actors (unnamed representatives from this group of associations) was involved in CLT-specific learning and research. More than 15 associations signed onto the charter for the establishment of a Community Land Trust in Brussels in 2010. Afterwards the local government became more involved and the intervention took off (CLTB website_ our history).

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

Low-income residents of Brussels, communities in which projects are implemented, housing-insecure individuals in other cities (if CLTB is able to prove the concept and inspire more CLTs).

==='''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
| x
| Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| x
| The Community Land Trust Brussels manages and leads the intervention (CLTB website_our governance)
Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects

|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
| x
| Housing fund Brussels (cooperative society) provides mortgages to the prospective buyers (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| For profit entreprises
| x
| Various private firms (i.e. Architects, contractors, etc.) provide their services, expertise, or financial support, or act as a member of the CTLB general assembly (CLTB website)
|-
| Local/regional government
| x
| The Housing Minister of the Brussels Capital Regional Government provides 2m eu/year in funding (CLTB website_support)
Public service members sit on board of CLT (CLTB website_our governance)
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
| x
| EU Interreg project provides funding
EU Urban Innovative Actions program provides funding
(CLTB website_support)
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| x
| Public Utility Foundation CLTB purchases and owns land which is managed by the CLTB not for profit (CLTB website_our governance)
Public Utility Foundation 4 Wings Foundation funding support (CLTB website_support)
Residents of housing projects (current and future) sit on CLT board and participate in co-creation (CLTB website_CLT model)
|}

==='''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.'''===

Firstly, the ability of many (15) community associations to self-organize and present a united appeal for the establishment of the CLTB was very important. Second, the productive and early engagement of the housing associations with the local government of Brussels was crucial. It resulted in formal approval and funding by the Brussels government needed to launch the intervention. Third, early involvement (via workshops, meetings, etc) of the target group in need of housing was very important - it allowed CLTB to see that their proposal was an answer to the target group's needs, and it gave a sense of legitimacy by facilitating this expression of need (confirmed by De Pauw).

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

Citizens, as members of the various housing associations, inspired and organized the intervention. They continue to be a central actor in the co-creation of the projects and residents make up one third of the CLT board members (CLTB website_ our governance). This is a highly participatory intervention. Future residents work together to guide the development of their dwellings, and current residents are responsible for their buildings’ management.

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

Community-based decision making in occurs in different forms. The CLTB NPO is directed by a mix of building owners, prospective buyers, CLT members, associations, neighbours, and representatives from the government. For each housing project, future and current residents have high levels of responsibility; their voices are central to decision making. There is also an annual general assembly where CLT members meet (active members have certain voting rights).

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

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

Since the intervention is so community-centered and prioritizes inclusion, very few (marginalized) social groups are excluded. However, individuals must meet certain admission conditions, the same as those for normal municipal social housing admittance, to be given a CLTB residence spot (Interreg_02:2). Therefore, these other groups are excluded (i.e. medium income groups, young people with unstable employment, elderly) (Interreg_02:9). Also, there is currently a long waiting list, so no new candidates can be registered (CLTB website_get a CLTB home).

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

Admission conditions are necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable are given priority, as there is excess demand for CLTB housing. Outcomes are unclear and there are no reports about work being done that cater to groups who do not meet admission conditions. Although there are other ways to participate, such as becoming a member or volunteer with CLTB.

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

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

Brussels’ housing crisis in the early 2000s (increased rent prices, not enough social housing, policy focus on homeownership) spurred action from local associations, which then snowballed into the BLT intervention (CLTB_our history).

==='''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]])'''===

Unfavourable housing and rental policies at the regional and national level were presumably influential in the motivation to establish the CLTB, since they were/are offering inadequate support for lower income demographics. Nationally, housing policies have largely benefited homeowners over private renters, in particular those in social housing (i.e. national housing budgets are mostly allocated to private owners, and significantly less is allocated to social housing and the rental market) (OECD paper). Social housing has been placed under the responsibility of Belgium’s regional government since 1980. While there are regional and national plans to increase the stock, there remains big social housing shortfalls (Social housing in Europe; Facets of housing).

Some specific policies include: the Brussels Housing Code, within which the CLT was entrenched in 2013 by the Brussels Capital Region (Regulatory policy type), and the Region’s ‘Alliance Habitat’ investment plan, which gives 2 million euros per year in subsidies to the CLTB (Economic policy type).
Low-carbon building standards set in 2015 by the Brussels Capital Region are influential, since they require all new construction to meet a certain passive building standard. This includes CLTB projects (Interreg_01:5).

==='''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 Belgian Federal State has three regions, one of which is the Brussels Capital Region. The regions are responsible for providing affordable housing, which has enabled and motivated the Brussels Capital Region to be highly involved and supportive of the CLT intervention (Interreg_02:1).

==='''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.)'''===

The hybrid intervention is possible due to positive interactions between housing associations and the Brussels Capital Region government. The associations were eager to engage with the government to quickly institutionalize the intervention, rather than attempting to grow it on their own. And the regional government (a social democracy) was responsive to their interests, conducting a feasibility study upon their request (before adopting it later on) (CLTB website_our history).

Compared to colleagues implementing CLTs in other places, CLTB proponents feel lucky that there is a close relationship between civil society groups and local authorities in Brussels. In Brussels there is a strong and well-organized civil society, especially in the housing sector, and there are a lot of innovative community housing association groups that receive government funding. One reason for this government-civil sector collaboration is that BCR is a small territory with the same capacity as the other two regions in Belgium. Housing is dependent on the city and thus supports close relationships between civil society groups and authorities (De Pauw).

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

Financial assistance in the start up phase included: a 150,000 euro feasibility study (from the Regional government), 10,000 from the RénovAssistance Foundation, support from the King Baudouin Foundation for the first years of operation expenses, and subsidized jobs funded by the Region.

Current financial arrangements include an annual 2 million euro subsidy from the Region, which allows the CLT foundation to purchase land and contribute towards 40% of building construction. The other 60% is derived from households’ mortgages (provided from Brussels Housing Fund). CLTB’s operational budget is mainly funded through various grants, membership fees (10euros per month), ground leases (10euros per household per month), crowd funding, and donations. The financial arrangements listed above are more complex than this and are further detailed in the SHICC 2019 report (Interreg_02).

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

No.

'''''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'''

Because the intervention is supported through a regulatory framework, there are few major obstacles posed to implementation. One barrier, however, is the lack of funds provided for non-residential spaces (like gardens or community spaces) in the Regional subsidies. These components are important to the CLT’s concept for thriving communities (Interreg_02:5).

Another implementation barrier includes the administrative delays to win public tenders, obtain planning permissions, and build new housing, leading to subsequent delay in the construction phase (Interreg_04: 3; Interreg_05: 5). This has resulted in some prospective residents waiting for years to receive housing.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

n/a It has legitimacy by being linked with government support and rooted in community needs.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

''n/a Demand exceeds supply. This is a popular intervention. ''

*'''d. Finances'''

Sustainable and reliable funding to support growing operations and more developments presumably poses the biggest obstacle to CLTB. It is heavily reliant on public funding, which could dry up if political priorities change (Interreg_02:9). Additionally, the current staff capacity is being stretched thinly and funding for more positions will need to be acquired in order to handle upscaled program implementation. Finally, as operations grow, the capacities of CLTB’s partner associations will also be stretched, and will therefore also need increased funding (Interreg_02:9).

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

Community building - which is a major dimension of the project - among prospective residents (before moving in the neighborhood) is more difficult for large communities, including people still on the waiting list (candidate resident) and people who are not yet engaged in a concrete project (Interreg_04: 4).

== 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. Inability to fund non-residential spaces
| So far, the non-residential spaces that have been created were funded via higher lease costs to renters. But the Region may begin to support these spaces if the CLTB demonstrates that its pilot projects have sustainable business models (Interreg_02:5,9).
|-
| 2. Heavy reliance on (a single source of) public funding
| Suggestions to overcome this include looking for different investment (from private actors or citizens), or funding campaigns (Interreg_02:9).
|-
| 3. Stretched capacity of CLT staff and partner associations
| CLTB is financing more full-time staff positions via various charitable foundations (Interreg_02:9). No reports on how CLTB partners will increase their capacity.
|-
| 4. Administrative delays to obtain planning permits and build new housing.
| It was not possible to speed up the administrative procedures. However, while some prospective residents did not yet receive housing, they have actively engaged in building community in their future neighborhood (Interreg_04: 3). In that sense these delays did not discourage prospective residents nor undermine community-building processes.
|-
| 5. Difficulties in building community in large groups of prospective (candidate) residents.
| In 2017, for the second time, CLTB has organized events allowing candidate-residents to meet and get to know each other, as well as to begin engaging in projects. In collaboration with other local organizations, thematic workshops have been organized (i.e. energy, finances, house reparations). In 2016, within the framework of the project “Co-create”, CLT has experimented with a new tool called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) for community building.
|}

== 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.'''===

From Interreg_02: CLT has 2 completed projects (9 units inhabited since 2015 and 32 units inhabited since the end of 2019), 4 projects in construction, and 5 projects being studied, equalling 164 units in development with eventual resale prices at 25-50% of the market price. It has 600 members (400 candidate housing owners, 170 supporting members, and 30 nonprofit organizations).

Since it is more focused on social sustainability, the intervention has so far not demonstrated substantial outcomes regarding environmental sustainability. The first completed project was built according to the Brussels Capital Region’s low-carbon standards (Interreg_01:5). However, this was required by law and not motivated by the project itself. Several of the planned projects include “green” features like community gardens and other communal green spaces, and one in particular is planned to be built within the upcoming Tivoli Green City quarter of Brussels.

== 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.'''

CLTB builds from experiences in experiments for alternative affordable housing in Brussels such as the L'Espoir project (one of the first passive solar, energy efficient housing buildings in Brussels, housing 14 low income migrant families since 2009), and a solidarity savings group in 2004 that allows low-income families to pool funds to purchase a house (CLTB website_our history).

In more detail from interview with De Pauw:

The L’Espoir project was successful, but CLTB proponents learned that this kind of thing is not possible without public support (subsidies, grants). L'Espoir started with nothing and spent a lot of effort trying to get support. There is a need for public money from the beginning. At several points through the project they almost stopped due to lack of funding. This is especially problematic for participants because it becomes quite risky. CLTB proponents also wanted to find a more sustainable way of using public grants, since L'Espoir residents who want to sell their home can do it at any price and retain any project, which is not sustainable. They discovered the CLT model as a way of introducing non-speculative elements.

Regarding the saving groups, proponents such as De Pauw had already been working with CIRE, who was running the savings group. These groups worked well, except when house prices increased. Therefore, proponents were interested in a more sustainable model that could be affordable for low-income groups.

In summary, CLTB drew lessons from what worked and from what couldn't be solved e.g. the way participation is organized in preparation for projects is very much inspired by what was done in L'Espoir and the saving groups.

Especially within the CLTB, projects learn from each other: “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)

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

Housing association members first learned about the CLT model from a convention on Housing Cooperatives in Lyon, France. They then visited a successful CLT example - the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont (CLTB website_our history).
The CLTB is also part of the SHICC EU-funded project, which aims to have a broad movement of CLTs across Europe and connects CLTB with the network of other CLTs. The project financially supports the selected CLTs and provides some knowledge resources (This support hits all four types of TRANSIT’s empowerment mechanisms).

In more detail from De Pauw interview:

Champlain was essential for CLTB success.
"They helped us with everything we wanted … When writing lease contracts we could use a lot of their documents, experience (despite being in a different context) and we had a lot of exchange with them and they were really supportive so that was really important, and still is. At least once a year we call them with a question. It was also a way of showing that what we wanted was possible and not just an idea."
Champlain proponents also came to Brussels several times and their CEO did a video message at a CLTB press conference, which was very important.

=== 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'''

As previously mentioned, one crucial piece of knowledge from the L’Espoir project was that significant public investment is needed to make affordable housing possible at a larger scale. Although they were able to raise funds to cover the reduced contribution of low-income residents, this was seen as an unsustainable model in the long term.

From the solidarity savings groups, the intervention learned that alternative savings systems cannot overcome high housing prices, which dissuaded them from adopting a similar approach (CLTB website_our history).

CLTB learned from internal reflections while replicating projects about their participatory procedures. In the beginning, they reproduced what had been done in L'Espoir, and actively involved participants from the start, when they bought the land or even before. They stopped after the pilot projects because of numerous risks and difficulties associated with building in Brussels, e.g. having to deal with a builder bankruptcy, having to wait two years for building permission, etc.. Despite being interesting to engage from the start, proponents decided it was too risky and instead compose the groups once they have the building permit (De Pauw).

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

The specific nature and content of what the CLTB drew from during their visit to the Champlain Housing Trust is not clear in the project documentation. This is the only mention of the “partnership”/”transfer”: “In September 2009, four members of this group were invited … to participate at an international study visit to the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont, a CLT that had just won a United Nations World Habitat Award. After a week, they returned to Brussels, more than ever convinced that the CLT model might be what they were looking for” (CLTB website_our history). The CLTB did adopt Champlain’s governance model, whereby the board of trustees is composed of one third current/future residents, one third civil society, and one third public officials (Interreg_02:1). The CLTB also adopted Champlain’s resale mechanism (Interreg_01:7).

However, the interview with De Pauw revealed the large amount of learning and exchange between Champlain and CLTB. See Q26b.

Regarding SHICC, their project website resources include: financial guides, local advocacy toolkit, and case studies of all the participating CLTs.

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

None specifically reported, but since CLTs are a relatively novel and complex intervention, there was likely a big learning curve. Areas of acquired knowledge could include legal aspects and procedural elements: “The last two years, we invested a lot in strengthening our organization, developing legal models, procedures, etc.” (CLTB website_our history).

=== 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 context of Brussels is characterized by high housing prices and low volume of social housing stock. The previous learned content may have caused the intervention to seek significant public investment in order to help it prosper at a wider scale (L’Espoir project) AND help the Regional government fulfill its duty towards social housing. The observed necessity to reduce cost of housing, and not just pool funds to buy expensive housing (solidarity savings groups), may have caused CLTB to source its land from a Regeneration scheme that allows municipalities to sell it below market price - aka the CLTB looked into strategies to lower its costs wherever possible in order to make the housing products more affordable.

Finally, the Champlain Trust model was adapted slightly to fit the Brussels context, for example taking the necessary steps of making it compliant with the relevant laws/policies (e.g. the 2015 low carbon standards). While everything from Champlain needed to be tweaked to fit the Brussels context, it needed less adaptation than one could imagine, despite having a completely different legal system (CLTB is under civil law, Champlain under common law). The major difference, however, was in the initiatives' aims: CLTB needed to accommodate their model for their goal to target lowest income groups. This has required CLTB to adopt a system that is more public than Champlain's to make it accessible. They therefore needed to do a lot of public tendering for architects, builders, etc.. CLTB's pricing system and allocation procedure has also been adapted to reach low-income groups. Additionally, CLTB had more participatory processes than Champlain, since BCR has a rich history of housing association activities (De Pauw).

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

The process of learning and overcoming obstacles is not particularly well-documented in INTERREG project files, but CLTB annual reports contained useful information.

==='''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.'''===

The site visit to Champlain Trust was a particularly important KBA which inspired the CLTB development.
The community building methods called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development), developed by CLTB in the framework of the project “Co-create” and in collaboration with partner organizations and researchers from the Universities of Bruxelles (Interreg_04: 4), further enabled the learning process.

== 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]'''

Yes. The CLTB’s goal is to have many social housing projects created within the Capital Region, and the goal of SHICC project is to create/enable a CLT movement with many replications. The success of the intervention (aka being able to provide decent, affordable housing to those in need) is dependent on it being scalable.

In the section “communicate with our members and with external actors” (Interreg_05: 21), CLTB aims to draw public attention to the project, thereby clarifying its identity for the public, and become a (European) reference for CLT models.

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

Urban contexts within the Brussels Capital Region and North-Western Europe in general, which SHICC has claimed to be in the midst of a housing affordability crisis (Interreg_03).

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

CLTB proponents and SHICC project.

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

None recorded - the project documentation and intervention documentation have an optimistic perspective on CLT transferability.

A possible limit to transferability of the CLT model is that more public funding is needed to meet the needs of low-income groups than those with greater means. Therefore, if this funding weren’t available in other contexts, the CLTB’s aim of helping the most vulnerable residents would be less achievable. While a CLT is possible without their level of public support, it would indeed be more complicated and projects would probably have to change their target group. For example, there are a few middle-class co-housing groups in Belgium that self-label as CLTs, without use of public money (De Pauw).

==='''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 learning process has not been very well-recorded in Interreg project documentation. This documentation has a promotional feel to it, and it mostly describes how the CLTB currently functions. However, the learning process has been well recorded in the CLTB annual reports, which describe current and upcoming projects, their outcomes, and any difficulties and possible solutions to address them.

Regarding how CLTB has made its more general experience accessible to citymakers, it reports various outreach and learning opportunities, see Q33.

==='''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”?)'''===

From the CLTB website: “Since its creation at the end of 2012, the CLTB, the first CLT of Europe, has received widespread interest from local authorities, associations, foundations, international institutions, academics from various European countries (France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Sweden,…). We have already welcomed several delegations and taken part in numerous events abroad. In this way, we are contributing to the model’s distribution on a European and global scale.”

CLTB has improved its communication tools (i.e. social network, website, brochures etc.) and has participated in many international gatherings, especially in Belgium and France. This includes, among others, presentations given at the housing cooperative society in Rennes (Fr), at the members of the European project “Urbamonde,” and at the “Collectif Goed” cooperative project in Anvers (Bel) (Interreg_05:21).

Actual demonstrations of direct transferability can be seen between individual CLTB housing projects in Brussels, which directly learn from each other (see Q26a). In a less direct sense, proponents have seen the increase in new CLT’s since 2010 when the CLTB was getting started and few had yet heard of the model. These CLTs have been successfully implemented in many different contexts because of the model's flexibility and answers many current issues of land, gentrification, and housing crises that are on top of the agenda. A lot of the model's success comes from people looking for alternatives for these issues. Regarding flexibility, it has several elements that can be combined in different ways: it has been used in urban and rural contexts, small and big scales, with or without public funding, and has been initiated by grassroots organizations or governments. However, CLTB proponents question whether these replications are true community land trusts, since many have a low level of participation (De Pauw). An interesting takeaway here is that the model’s flexibility enables transferability, but can dilute the initial aims of the intervention regarding actively engaging and serving the most needy citizens.

For example, in France the CLT model is not bottom-up: federal law was changed to make it possible and projects are initiated by municipalities where the community aspect is often forgotten. However it still includes the main elements of a CLT (separation of land and the building, anti-speculation formulas)(De Pauw).

== 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?

CLTB helped raise a discussion on public land policy and the idea that it should be used in a sustainable way rather than being sold on the markets. This is a real debate at a government level, as well. Additionally, approaches to co-creating housing may be increasing as a result of CLTB, since other more established housing organizations are also giving importance to resident participation. “These are things I think we contributed to change the mindset of”(De Pauw).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

Hybrid governance can be a very successful way of establishing an intervention because it gets the ideas, legitimacy, and motivation from the people and the funding and institutional support from the government. However, interventions sharing the CLTB’s aims seem more context-bound than non-government led interventions because government priorities and resources vary widely.

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!

== 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.
|}

Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg

2021-03-15T16:05:07Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [http://www.stadtteilverein-vauban.de/index.php| Philipp Späth] for more information.
{{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)”]'''===

The intervention addresses the eco-district of Vauban in the city of Freiburg, Germany, with a particular focus on its co-housing projects. It has been developed at the scale of a neighborhood or city district within a regional hub (Freibrug has 220.000 inhabitants).

The intervention aimed to co-create and design a sustainable neighborhood, which would provide inclusive and affordable housing that was adapted to the needs and the will of the local population.

==='''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.]'''===

This intervention is primarily implemented in the sectors of housing and urban development (i.e. building/establishing a new district).

==='''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]'''===

The intervention (co-housing in Vauban and Genova’s case) aimed to establish a sustainable, eco-district while implementing participatory planning and cooperative ownership (TRANSIT_01: 5). Social objectives of inclusiveness and affordable housing, as well as ecological goals such as walkable pathways, car-free zones, green areas, and low-energy buildings are embedded in the project (TRANSIT_01: 6).

“social and ecological goals and standards have been set from the beginning as part of the official guidelines by the City of Freiburg: compulsory low energy standard for new buildings, connection to the tram network until 2006, rain infiltration on the very territory, socially mixed inhabitant structure and a priority of giving away land to private builder-owners and collective building projects (Life-Projekt)" (TRANSIT_16).

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

The creation of this new district started after the withdrawal of the French military troops from the Vauban military facilities in 1992. In 1994, the city became the owner of the land and launched the project. At the same time, citizens interested in engaging in the project created organizations such as the Forum Vauban and the Independent Housing Project - SUSI. Housing cooperatives began to form in 1997, namely the Genova housing cooperative. The first tenants moved into Genova I in 1999 and in Genova II in 2001 (Table 5.1. Timeline and development of Vauban_TRANSIT_01: 8). Other projects have since developed. In 2009, the construction phases were completed.

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

The intervention is characterized by a hybrid-governance mode.

==='''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 intervention provides an interesting example of negotiated governance between a grassroots initiatives and the municipality, thereby reaching across institutional boundaries.

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

*TRANSIT_01_cohousing: the eco-district of Vauban and the co-housing project GENOVA (02)
*TRANSIT_02_Social Innovation Research project: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/
*Interview with A., a project proponent (10.07.20)

== 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).'''

Yes, the intervention has been studied in the context of the EU-funded project TRANSIT (2014-2017).<ref>TRANSIT website. Last view on 29/06/20: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ .</ref> The project aims to develop a new theory on Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) which refers to “a process of changes in social relations, involving the challenging, altering and/or replacing of dominant institutions and structures”. The project aims to draft a manifesto for TSI that sheds light on initiatives and emerging movements for TSI in hopes of inspiring policy makers, social entrepreneurs, academics, and other stakeholders.

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]] approach. The TRANSIT project is explicitly mentioned in the database. In addition, the intervention addresses the [[Governance and participation processes]] approach and the [[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]] approach.

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

Yes, the project has been coded in the framework of WP4 but not the intervention itself.

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

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

Inequality and exclusion has been problematized both by the (prospective) residents of the district (in the framework of citizens organizations including Forum Vauban, SUSI, other citizen groups or cooperatives...) and by the municipality of Freiburg in view of creating an inclusive and affordable eco-district.

Specifically, to make GENOVA co-housing more inclusive, the cooperative is regulating the pricing structure, reducing house rents for targeted groups i.e. “elderly people and long-term members, as well as persons with the right to social housing, so called Wohnberechtigungsschein” (TRANSIT_01: 36).

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

The achievement of justice has explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention by focusing on affordable housing and citizens' self-planning and management: “(Vauban) is an ecological, sustainable district which has consciously set itself social objectives such as inclusiveness and affordable housing, as well as short distances” (TRANSIT_01: 6) ; “affordable housing, planned and managed by its residents” (TRANSIT_01: 16) ; “the goal of which was to create ecological living space based on the principles of social justice and self-organization” (TRANSIT_01: 24).

In addition, “The City of Freiburg as the owner of the territory of Vauban is responsible for its planning and opening up for development. In the course of this, social and ecological goals and standards have been set from the beginning as part of the official guidelines by the City of Freiburg: compulsory low energy standard for new buildings, connection to the tram network until 2006, rain infiltration on the very territory, socially mixed inhabitant structure and a priority of giving away land to private builder-owners and collective building projects (Life-Projekt)" (TRANSIT_01: 16).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 intervention was co-initiated by citizens, primarily the citizen-led initiative Forum Vauban and the Independent Housing Projects -SUSI, and the municipality of Freiburg, in order to build a new district:

“After the departure of the military (1992), the Vauban district was designed and rebuilt anew during a unique citizen-involvement process – for which it has been awarded several times – by the City of Freiburg together with the citizen-lead association ‘Forum Vauban’ as a bottom-up actor with a mandate in the Vauban city planning council (TRANSIT_01: 5).

“When the City of Freiburg decided to build the new district in 1993, the citizen-led initiative of Forum Vauban had already been active in setting up their plans and visions about how to build the district in a “green”, sustainable and participatory way” (Transit_01: 24).

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

The envisioned benefiters of the intervention are the (prospective) residents of Vauban, especially the owners of housing cooperatives (interview with A.), and more broadly, the residents of Freiburg who could potentially move into affordable and ecological housing. The municipality of Freiburg also benefits from the district's widespread reputation, using it as a “green flag” in urban marketing strategies to enhance the attractiveness of the city (TRANSIT_01: 27).

==='''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
| X
|
*Forum Vauban (citizen-led organization)
*Co-housing cooperatives (e.g. SUSI ; Genova e.g. ; Vaubanaise e.g….).
*Baugruppen (e.g. Wohnen&Arbeiten ; Woge e.V. etc…) (Table 5.2: co-housing and other important projects in Vauban_TRANSIT_01: 13)
*Other initiatives, e.g.: Autofreies Wohnen e.V. (organizes car-free mobility in Vauban); Quartierladen e.G. (a cooperative supermarket for local organic food supply); Kinderabenteurh of Freiburg e.V. (an associative kindergarten); Villaban with Restaurant Kantine (a restaurant organizing joint cooking events)
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
|
*The municipality of Freiburg
*The local parliament
*The “Vauban city planning council (GRAG)” is a consultative committee within the city council (including members of the administration, of the local parliament and of Forum Vauban), which was created to plan the new district of Vauban alongside citizen groups (TRANSIT_01: 33).
|-
| 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 converging vision of the citizens and the municipality for building a new district was crucial. Whereas the municipality intended to plan a new district to meet the extremely high demand for living space in Freiburg, Forum Vauban had envisaged an ecological, socially just, and self-organized city quarter with lots of green space and affordable housing (TRANSIT_01: 16). Specifically, citizens represented by Forum Vauban benefited from direct access to discussion with parliamentarians and municipal actors in the “Vauban City Policy Council” GRAG (see Q.15). The support from local parliamentarians was therefore critical in enabling the citizens' plans and visions to be implemented (interview with A.).

In addition, the city dedicated additional public money to set-up the project in a participatory way and officially mandated Forum Vauban to mediate the process and provide assistance (e.g. with the distribution of building lots) (TRANSIT_01: 23).

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

Citizens, especially Forum Vauban, were the drivers of the co-housing projects. Citizens engaged in visioning and planning the distinct as well as in the physical building it (e.g. with the Baugruppen) (TRANSIT_01: 16).

When the project of rebuilding a new district arose (1992-1994), self-organized citizens were invited to share their vision of the district: “The Forum Vauban (working as an open forum) invited, organized, and coordinated professional expertise around planning, ecological housing, funding and forms of ownership brought in by interested citizens” ; “This could be realized because the city of Freiburg agreed and provided a frame and organizational innovations to cooperate with the citizen-lead Forum Vauban. From this platform emerged various building groups, some of which came up with the idea of cooperative building" (TRANSIT_01: 17).

In addition, students of architecture - on a voluntary basis - initiated and facilitated the process of developing utilization plans. (TRANSIT_01: 17).

Finally, “the citizen-initiative was the driving force in establishing participatory planning and “learning while planning” methods” (TRANSIT_01: 18).

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

Both civil-society and governmental actors participated in creating the eco-district of Vauban. “On the one hand, it was built in a bottom-up process through self-organized housing initiatives of cooperatives and privately organized building groups (Baugruppen). On the other hand, the overall planning of the infrastructure, the selling of land property, and the ecological building laws were set-up and coordinated by the government of the City of Freiburg including participatory planning processes with the future residents” (TRANSIT_01: 42). Citizens groups provided visions for the district and participated in the planning and building process, while the administration of the City of Freiburg, as the owner of the land, had the responsibility to decide on planning and selling land slots (TRANSIT_01: 33).

In addition, a mix-consultative council called “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” was established, which included seven parliamentarians, twenty members of the municipality administration and one member of Forum Vauban. This council was responsible for “creating the necessary infrastructure, taking over a coordinating role, doing the marketing of the territories” (TRANSIT_01: 33). The GRAG was separated from the usual municipal hierarchies and was instead assigned to the head of the construction department, which opened up possibilities for the representatives of the citizenry to directly contribute to the work of this group (TRANSIT_01: 18). The council was therefore a forum for discussion between different actors and facilitated the bridging of institutional logics.

The municipality also designed and implemented the principle of “Planning that Learns," meaning that pilot initiatives would be experimented before being widely enforced. A prime example of this principle is the mobility concept of Vauban, which was first operated in one third of the district before being implemented in the whole neighborhood (interview with A.).

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

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

Direct exclusion of social groups is not reported. However, indirect exclusions have been controversial. First, the car-free mobility concept of the district was found exclusive and dissuasive for car-owners. Second, housing was primarily accessible to home owners rather than to tenants. Indeed, about 76% of the district is dedicated to home owners (including cooperatives). However, becoming an owner is not accessible to everyone because it entails very high entry costs. Additionally, building one's own house takes a lot of time (at least 5 years), which not everybody can afford (interview with A.).

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

There are not reported indications about the triggers of these indirect exclusions. Concerning the car-free mobility concept, a solution was found by creating dedicated parking lots and establishing a system that meets the needs of both car-owners and of those who do not have a car. In regards to the housing system, the primacy given to home owners is a political decision that has not been amended (interview with A.).

== 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 circumstances which have reportedly triggered the interventions are :

*The housing crisis in Freiburg (and co-housing alternative as a response to it).
“Because of its attractiveness (geographical, cultural, economic hub, and university), Freiburg is one of the most expensive cities in Germany in view of the housing price. As a result of the high pressure on the housing market, creative forms of alternative living developed like trailer home communities developed as well as ongoing urban planning activities of the municipality, trying to explore and build new areas and quarters” (TRASIT_01: 7).

*The ecologically-minded citizens and local policy makers.
This is related to the historical background of the city, including its tradition of critical thinkers at the University (e.g. H. Heidegger, H. Arendt), the social movement against the nuclear power plant of Wyhl, and leftwing policy makers (TRANSIT_01: 7).

*The opportunity to build a new district from scratch after the departure of the French troops from Vauban in 1992.
“The well-educated, collegiate and ecological milieu of Freiburg was in need of housing. The expected liberation of the French Vauban barracks at a central location in Freiburg generated desires and creative ideas. The time span until the sale to the Federal Republic was settled could be used for establishing a professional forum, the Forum Vauban, from within the citizenry from 1994 on. This forum started to develop serious urban planning concepts.”(TRANSIT_01: 8).

*The capacities and resources of Forum Vauban to engage in the project.
Forum Vauban included a core group of four people working almost full time on the project (who were being professionalized), along with several working groups. Those working groups were responsible for developing visions and for implementing projects in the sectors of energy, mobility, social cohesion, and social infrastructures (interview with A.).

==='''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]])'''===

Regarding the participatory process, the municipality conceptualized a legal framework - namely the “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” and the principle of “Planning that Learns” - which allowed citizens to participate in urban development.

More broadly, cooperative housing in Germany is regulated by the CooperativesAct, first adopted in 1889 and reformed in 2006. It determines the cooperatives’ organizational rules and their business conduct (TRANSIT_01: 6). The Rent Regulation Act outlines the responsibilities of all landlords of rental dwellings, including housing cooperatives, and specifications about rent increases (ICA) (Enkeleda 2011, TRANSIT_01: 6). Cooperatives are framed by regulatory policies from the national level and enforced locally.

==='''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?'''===

In Germany, the municipality is responsible for urban planning within the lines of the national regulations (i.e. the urban planning laws and codes). The municipality together with the federal state can thus allow citizens to participate in urban planning; in this case, the Baden-Württemberg Development Agency gave Forum Vauban extended governance and financial responsibilities to mediate the participation process. This means that citizen participation in urban planning depends on specific and local regulatory policies.

==='''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.)'''===

Freiburg has a culture of ecologically and politically engaged citizens, which has manifested in various protests (i.e. against Wyhl nuclear power plant) and broad participation in national and local political issues. Freiburg was the first city in Germany to vote for a green political majority. Self-organized groups have been recognized since squatters successfully built vivid communities (80s).

Concerning the development of Vauban, there were enough people trusting the eco-left millieu to positively influence the district development, thereby invested money in Baugruppen and proving that their trust was justified.

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

The intervention was financially supported by two means:

*Funds raised and gathered by the citizens.
“It consisted first of all in voluntary work for planning the private houses and furthermore working on concepts for the whole district. Furthermore, Forum Vauban could fundraise several projects because of its special model character, sometimes in cooperation with the city or other official institutions” (TRANSIT_01: .40). Between 1996 and 2002, about EUR 200, 000 were received from the German Federal Foundation for the Environment, and from 1997-1999 about EUR 700, 000 from the EU Life Environmental Program. Memberships, donations, and other fees account for the overall budget of Forum Vauban, which was managing a budget of 2 million Euro from 1995-2001 (TRANSIT_01: 40).
In addition, “on the level of private housing subsidies, the house builders and cooperatives could make use of the so-called Eigenheimzulage, a state subsidy for builder-owners” (TRANSIT_01: 40).

*Financial support from the city development budget.
Financial support was provided to for the city administration by the Federal State of Germany or the regular process of building a new district. As an urban development project, the Vauban has a specific status and budget (EUR 85,000,000) according to German building law. The city invested in total 95 million Euros in the district and provided an additional EUR 200, 000 for the participation process (TRANSIT_01: 41).

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

Citizen participation was consolidated throughout the project as Forum Vauban earned the trust of institutional actors (interview with A.). The milestones of this progressive recognition are:
*the invitation for Forum Vauban to join the “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” as well as the financial support of 30, 000 marks per year given by the municipality (spring 1995)
*the financial support of the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt as well as *the participation of Forum Vauban to the United Nations Organization Habitat Conference in Istanbul (summer 1996)
*the implementation of the mobility concept according to the principle of “Planning that Learns” (summer 1996).
*the grant from the Baden-Württemberg Development Agency (Landesentwicklunggesellschaft LEG) to Forum Vauban for participating in the development of the district (1998).

'''''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'''

Disputes over the destruction of old military barracks occurred between activists/former squatters and the opposing municipality. For instance, a joint initiative of SUSI- and GENOVA-stakeholders - called Drei5Viertel i.G aimed to renovate three additional barrack buildings but failed because of the regulatory framework. The stakeholders failed to meet the (tight) municipal deadline for proposing a financing concept (TRANSIT_01: 14) and the barracks were demolished.

In addition, the timeframe of the project, due to administrative procedures (about 5 years at least to build the first houses), may have discouraged citizens to engage in the project. Besides, the uncertainty about its outcomes, i.e. whether the project would be accepted by the municipality and a grant given, was also an obstacle to implementing the intervention (interview with A.)

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The collaboration between citizens and the municipality was not always easy because each group had to adapt to the institutional logic of the others. For instance, when the GRAG invited a representative of Forum Vauban to take over a permanent seat in a consulting role, “Forum Vauban welcomed this decision of the city as a step towards them. Nevertheless they were not always satisfied, because the citizens were expected to adapt to the logic of urban planning which already existed in the city bureaucracy” (TRANSIT_01: 25).

From the perspective of many inhabitants of Vauban, an unjust treatment by the City persists throughout the history of the quarter. For instance, the city benefits from tourism in Vauban and from the image of Freiburg being a “Green City," due in large part to Forum Vauban and its civic activities, without the latter being recognized and appreciated sufficiently (TRANSIT_01: 27).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

The entry cost to become a housing owner is very high and prevents many people from engaging in such projects (interview with A.). The financial obstacle is a driver of exclusion for working-class people.

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

*Contrasting visions of the district development between project proponents.
“While some followed a radical path of squatting houses and initially moved their trailer homes illegally onto the free area left behind by the military. –, others wanted to maintain good contacts with the city council” (TRANSIT_01: 16). Specifically, squatters and trailer home owners had some confrontations with Forum Vauban. Whereas squatters already living in the military barracks were reluctant to plans proposed by Forum Vauban, the latter felt that squatters were jeopardizing the project by undermining citizens' actions toward municipal actors (interview with A.)

*Gradual disengagement of the residents.
“When the majority of the houses were built and residents moved in, as ‘normal’ life started, the engagement for the quarter started to diminish” (TRANSIT_01: 23).

*The liquidation of Forum Vauban
Forum Vauban became bankrupt in 2004 after a lawsuit from the European Commission. It was replaced by the new ‘Stadtteil Verein Vauban e.V.’ (city district association) based on resident members.

== 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?
|-
| Controversies over the destruction of old military barracks by the municipality
|by the activists, occupations of the barracks and protests.
by the municipality, continued the demolitions.
|-
| Liquidation of Forum Vauban
| by the residents/activists, establishment of “Stadtteilverein” district association (as follow-up organization of Forum Vauban).
|-
| Dissensus among project proponents
| by the civil society organizations, “The different groups involved in the design and development of Vauban managed to cooperate in a productive way to realize this district project due to a great balancing act between innovative visions and the reality of existing city planning laws. The diversity of the district map (including housing cooperatives, groups of private house builders and construction companies) mirrors the different interests and groups and their ‘areas’”(TRANSIT_01: 16).
|-
| Gradual disengagement of residents
| after the completion of building the district, residents spread out to a large variety of projects both inside the district (including “hosting space” for supporting refugees with rooms for German lessons), and outside of the district with the creation of various interest groups with relevance for the entire city and beyond (TRANSIT_01:24).
|
|}

== 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.'''===

Sustainability challenges addressed in Vauban district include:
*Car-reduced living (including specific external parking lots managed by a “car-free living association”).
*Energy-efficient housing and low-carbon buildings. “The municipality of Freiburg introduced a low energy housing standard for all buildings, namely a maximum of 65kWh/a of the primary energy consumption” (TRANSIT_01: 20).
*Lots of green areas and amenities

Apply to GENOVA cooperative : “One of the accomplishments of GENOVA in view of affordable living space is the fixing of rental prices for 10 apartments supported by GENOVA by means of the social building program for 10 years. However, after some efforts to choose the beneficiaries itself, GENOVA decided that applicants should have an official document proving their eligibility to receive low cost housing issued by city institutions. After 10 years, they can then receive support for paying their rent by a special social fund created by GENOVA” (TRANSIT_01: 28).

== 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.'''

The intervention is built upon the development of another district in Freiburg called Rieselfeld. Located on a former leach field, the creation of this new district in 1992 is a pioneer in terms of citizens' participation in urban development projects in Freiburg. Specifically, the “City Planning Council” (see Q.15) that includes parliamentarians, municipal actors and citizen organizations was first established for Rieselfeld. Civil society partners actively involved in the urban development project included, among others the Protestant social welfare organization Diakonie, as well as a car-free living organization that conceptualized a new mobility vision for the district (Interview with A.).

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

The cooperative movement in Germany has inspired the intervention. The movement is rooted in the 19th-century history and the leading figures of Raiffeisen and Schulze-Delitzsch. Cooperative models developed in different sectors (housing, farming, energy) and spread across Europe and especially in Germany during the late 19th and 20th centuries. These examples of housing cooperatives in Germany (especially in the the German Federal States of Schleswig-Holstein, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamburg and Lower Saxony) are traditionally large housing cooperatives more strongly integrated into the urban planning process, and have reportedly been inspirational for the instigators of the intervention (TRANSIT_01: 6).

However, the old housing cooperatives had a rather distinct vision of the social organization of housing (e.g. environmental standards or cooperative rules). Vauban proponents moved away from the old cooperative model to experiment with innovative approaches (e.g. carpooling) (interview with A.).

=== 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'''

The experience of Rieselfeld was inspirational for Vauban’s proponents, especially for Forum Vauban, which attempted to develop a more comprehensive approach to citizen participation. Forum Vauban lobbied to have a stronger influence on politicians as well as to directly engage in visioning, planning and especially building the district. Whereas welfare or mobility organizations partnered with the municipality for the development of Rieselfeld, local citizens represented by Forum Vauban were the driving forces of the urban development process.

In addition, the car-free living concept of Vauban is reportedly built upon the vision for Rieselfeld (interview with A.).

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

The intervention acquired knowledge from other housing cooperative experiences in Germany. Specifically, according to German regulation, every cooperative has to become a member of a cooperative confederation “in order to be advised, supervised and observed” (TRANSIT_01: 37). GENOVA and Quartiersladen are both members of “Prüfungsverband der kleinen und mittelständischen Genossenschaften e.V.“ (PkmG). This unit audits cooperatives, provides support in matters of economy, law and tax policy, and advises on questions of organization management. This audit was deemed very useful for the creation of GENOVA (interview with A.).

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

n/a

=== 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?'''===

On its website, Forum Vauban states: “Learning about participatory planning processes was a key topic in the Vauban process. The principle of “Planning that learns” and the extended citizen participation with Forum Vauban set new standards of communication, interaction and integration” (TRANSIT_01: 37

Through the participatory planning process, the intervention was adapted to manifest houses and infrastructure where some people could spend the rest of their lives. The aspect of community building in the early phase with the future neighbours is seen as centrally important: (TRANSIT_01: 38).

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

The conflicts that posed the municipality in opposition to the residents/activists (e.g. over the demolition of old barracks or over the modalities of the citizens participation) were overcome and enhanced transparency and mutual trust between both actors, allowing for further cooperation.

“The sense of responsibility of the citizens had been strengthened and the disenchantment with politics reduced. Despite occasional conflicts the City of Freiburg and the citizenry see the participatory and cooperative approach as a great gain of the quality and further development of the city quarter of Vauban” (TRANSIT_01: 25).

==='''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.'''===

*for activists (especially at the beginning of the intervention): face-to-face meetings, location where people met (e.g. the student broad office at the university), a print media for information and exchanges, namely the “Vauban actuel” district magazine
*for citizens and municipality cooperation, the “Vauban City Planning Council” and the implementation of the participatory principles like “planning that leans". They included workshops *for co-creating the design of streets and open green spaces as well as excursions mediated by Forum Vauban.
*About 10 events (including district festivals, international conferences “UrbanVisions” as a pre-event of the UN ‘urban 21”) were co-organized with the City of Freiburg, mainly addressing future home owners, architects, craftsmen, the building industry and financial institutes (TRANSIT_01: 37).

== 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]'''

"Vauban district and the co-housing projects are internationally known and the model “has inspired all over the world in view of sustainable planning especially with regard to citizen involvement” (TRANSIT_01: .6).

“Vauban’s widespread reputation as a model ecodistrict (e.g. through exhibition at World Expo Shanghai) attracts hordes of visitors from all over the world. A number of organizations offer guided tours to Freiburg’s green city with a special part of Vauban. About 25,000 such technical visitors are counted by the municipal Green City Office each year, most of them from South Korea, France and Italy, many of them politicians or (municipal) technical staff, but many also school children" (TRANSIT_01: 38).

“The growing worldwide recognition and dissemination of Vauban as a model-eco district has led to an unexpected phenomenon: more and more interested persons from all over the world have started studying, and visiting Vauban in order to learn more about the details of the district’s development – academia, politicians, technical experts, and even pupils and ordinary persons who just want to add a “green sight” to the standard visiting tour of Freiburg. Admittedly, after digesting first impressions, some of them have also voiced the possibility of “transplanting” the ideas behind the model of Vauban to other places (Interview VB2)" (TRANSIT_01: .30).

The success of the Vauban eco-district offers lessons for urban planners and mayors all over the world to learn from the example of this experimental district (TRANSIT_01: 6).

The experiences made with GENOVA e.G. have inspired the setting up of Vaubanaise e.G., also built in Vauban, and are currently informing the establishment of Esche e.G. (i.Gr.) for building about 70 housing units in another part of Freiburg in the coming years.

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

The intervention can be possibly transferred to other urban contexts. The Vauban model has been looked at and visited by experts from all over the world.

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

Activists from Forum Vauban, the municipality which supports the replication of the intervention and promotes it, and researchers from the TRANSIT project.

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

“The concept of Vauban was never entirely repeated in any other new district of Freiburg except for the low energy standard for housing which has been introduced as obligatory in Freiburg since then. Unfortunately this regulation has influenced a negative effect on affordable housing, because the standard has increased the prices. In this sense, this case reveals a danger of extracting single innovations from the overall concept or case they are embedded in. If the social innovation of citizen-lead planning and ownership – for instance in the form of housing cooperatives – was combined more often with the technical innovations of ecological building laws, affordable housing in low-energy houses could be realized on a broader basis" (TRANSIT_01: 44).

In Freiburg, the mobility concept of Vauban was never replicated because of some shortcomings that have undermined its legitimacy. While the residents of Vauban who own a car have to declare and pay for it, some free-riders did not declare it and parked in the surrounding neighborhoods. The strong criticism that arose resulted in the municipality rejecting to transfer this mobility concept to the new district of Gutleutmatten district. However, the possibility of implementing a car-free living concept in the district of Dietenbach in Freiburg is currently discussed (interview with A.).

==='''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 framework of TRANSIT project the learning process related to Vauban’s co-housing project has been record in a reflexive way, giving special attention to the section “5.1.16 Social learning through Vauban” (TRANSIT_01: 37) of a deliverable of the WP4.

There are about 25,000 visits per year in Vauban from people from all over the world, including “academia, politicians, technical experts, pupils and ordinary persons” in order to learn more about the details of the district’s development. This interest was triggered by the exhibition of the Vauban model at the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai.

Facing a growing number of inquiries about the model eco-district, the City’s planning department called for private expert agencies to provide guided tours:, “a network of professional guides hosts tours around the quarter for political and international guests” (TRANSIT_01: 30).

“At the same time, the City of Freiburg intensified its PR work to present Vauban to the interested public: a website with six subpages, online and printed brochures in six different languages, as well as imagery and presentations are available.”

The growing attention to Freiburg as a “Green City” in general and the sustainability awards it has received led the municipality to establish a designated “Green City Office." This is located in the Department of International Relations and coordinates and answers to inquiries. “The office has signed Memorandums of Understanding with four designated “Green City”- agencies to organize study visits and seminars, meeting the visitors’ interests” (TRANSIT_01: 31).

==='''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”?)'''===

Since its presentation at the HABITAT exhibition in 1996, Vauban has been looked at as an example of urban planning projects involving citizen participation, car-reduction, and sustainable living. Specifically , the creation of living spaces free of cars was inspirational for the development of several laws in Germany. The two options for choosing – either payments for a parking lot or a contribution for the association “Autofreies Wohnen” (car-free living) has “resulted in a legal amendment on the level of the State of Baden-Württemberg allowing more freedom to create diverse forms of parking lots, for instance for bikes instead for cars only” (TRANSIT_01: 29).

“Most of these visitors claim they are taking inspiration from the innovations of Vauban, but there is no monitoring or evaluation and little feedback as to where and how these inspirations have led to real changes in other places. Nevertheless, many examples show the dissemination of Vauban’s experiences. For instance, after several visits and exchanges with Vauban citizens, the nearby rural Municipality of Teningen, with which Vauban has developed a partnership, is now planning to invest in solar installations as well (VB1)” (TRANSIT_01: 39).

In addition, in “December 2015 Vauban started a city partnership with the French town Eybens, which approached Vauban to learn from its experiences as a sustainable city district” (TRANSIT_01: 36).

== 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 Freiburg, the co-creation process, the application of the principle of “Planning that learns”, as well as the creation of “City Planning Councils” set new standards for citizens participation (TRANSIT_01: 37). Building on the experience of Vauban, the city has developed a planning method able to react to new developments quickly and flexibly, allowing “enlarged” citizen participation that goes far beyond the usual demands of the construction law (TRANSIT_01: 18). For instance, a “City Planning Council” was implemented for the development of the new Dietenbach district in Freiburg. However, unlike in Vauban, the council for Dietenbach included experts (in mobility, housing), members of the municipality administration, and local parliamentarians rather than a citizen forum.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

“The main aspect of Vaubans’ innovation is the negotiation process between the urban planning office of the municipality and the strong citizen initiative of Forum Vauban with its diverse aims of a socially just, ecological district” (TRANSIT_01: 42).

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T16:00:41Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [https://local-social-innovation.eu/| Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T16:00:24Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [[https://local-social-innovation.eu/|Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T15:58:32Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [[link=local-social-innovation.eu|Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T15:58:09Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [[link=https://local-social-innovation.eu|Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T15:57:56Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [[link=https://local-social-innovation.eu/|Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona

2021-03-15T15:57:40Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact [link=https://local-social-innovation.eu/|Isabel Lema from partner project SMARTEES for more information.]]
{{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 is about the creation of Superblocks in Barcelona, 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.
Each of the 503 Superblocks will be different in its exact structure as they will be adapted to neighbourhood contexts.

The first Superblock in Barcelona was established in Ciutat Vella (El Born) in 1993 and in Vila de Gràcia in 2003 (SMARTEES_01: A114)
Between 2012 - 2015 the Superblock Programme started with four pilot areas in:
*La Maternitat i Sant Ramón, in Les Corts
*Sants-Hostrafrancs, in Sants-Montjuïc
*DiagonalPoblenou, in Sant Martí,
*Esquerra de l’Eixample, in Eixample (Ajuntament_01: 21)

From 2016 to 2019, the large-scale Municipal Action Plan, “Let's fill the streets with life. The implementation of the Superblock Model in Barcelona” (Ajuntament_01: 1) continued to work on creating and implementing Superblocks. They worked in other areas in the city, piloting the program such in the Poblenou neighborhood.

==='''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.]'''===

Mobility and transport.

==='''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]'''===

The municipality of Barcelona summarizes the strategic goals of the intervention in four points (Ajuntament_01: 25f).:
*Improving the habitability of public spaces
This is about boosting the use of public spaces (e.g for children, meeting, resting etc.) by prioritizing pedestrians, increasing traffic reduced areas, promoting new uses of public spaces, and improving attraction and comfort of those spaces.

*Moving towards more sustainable mobility
The goal is a healthy, low-carbon model of traffic with less noise and exhaust pollution. This is done by reducing motorized vehicles in general, promoting alternative fuels in the transport sector, and switching to more efficient means of transport.

*Increasing and improving urban greenery and biodiversity
This is about generally increasing green areas, creating micro-habitats for birds and other species, ensuring a broad variety of plants, and making the ground permeable for water. Also community managed green areas are promoted to increase public interest and participation.

*Promoting public participation and joint responsibility
The aim is to open up the process as much as possible to ensure participation in city and territory approaches.

As its main goal, the reclamation of public spaces, currently occupied by private cars, for and by residents stands at the core of this intervention. It is about “filling the streets with life again”. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.)

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

The initial Superblock Programme took place from 2012 to 2015. The Municipal Action Plan lasted from 2016 to 2019. The longterm goal is to create up to 503 Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: A114).

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

Government - led.

==='''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> '''===

A) The intervention has been implemented and studied on a district as well as a city-wide level
B) There are EU-funded studies concerning the intervention
C) The intervention aims at sustainable as well as just goals
D) It is very well documented (project materials, research, media)

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

SMARTEES (2019): Deliverable 3.1. Report about 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]

Barcelona (2016). Government measure: Let's fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona. Commission for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility, Council of Barcelona. [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/sites/default/files/en_gb_MESURA%20GOVERN%20SUPERILLES.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 - from 2018-2021 [https://local-social-innovation.eu/] as well as GREENLULUS - Green Locally Unwanted Land Uses - from 2016 - 2021 [http://www.bcnuej.org/projects/greenlulus/].

*'''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.'''

Energy and Mobility solutions.
It is also about the ideas concerning rights to the city, as it wants to free up public space currently taken by cars.
It could also fit into Nature-based solutions as some affected spaces are "greened".

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

Yes [https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf]

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

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

Exclusion of residents from public spaces and the loss of public spaces in general is the fundamental inequality that the municipality of Barcelona addresses through this intervention (Ajuntament_01: 2).

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

Justice is not explicitly mentioned, although it is definitely a driver behind returning the rights to streets to its residents.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The municipality of Barcelona.

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

Residents as well as other citizens visiting the areas who may be looking for public spaces to let their children play safely, relax, etc.. (Ajuntament_01: 1f.).

==='''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
| X
| Different universities, other expert institutions.
|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
|
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
| X
| Biciclot SCCL - a bicycle workshop in Poblenou which supported the implementation of the Superblock in Poblenou and who have joined the working group.
|-
| Platforms
| X
| There are citizen platforms which are in favor of their particular neighbourhood Superblock e.g “Col·lectiu Superilla Poblenou”<ref>https://superillap9.wordpress.com.</ref> in Poblenou or in Camp d´en Grassot<ref>https://superillagrassot.wordpress.com.</ref> which have argued in favor of Superblocks as a way to reduce private vehicle circulation.

|-
| NGOs
| X
| TaulaEix Pere IV supported the Superblock in Poblenou and have also joined the working group.
|-
| Social movements
| X
| It seems that there are different strong movements in favor and against Superblocks, which are mostly in regards to the effects on the district/neighbourhood level and any perceived positive/negative outcomes of Superblocks (rather than the city plan in general).
The most controversial debate seems to be going on in Poblenou with strong opinions on both sides.
|-
| Political parties
| X
| The pilot projects were initially launched by the conservative party “Convergència i Unió”. After 2015´s election the new left party “Barcelona en Comú” is leading the city in a coalition with other left parties. They are giving the program continuity. Opposition comes from “Partido Popular” who defend the priority of private car use.
There are also opposition parties in favor of the concept.
|-
| Media
| X
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Consultancies provide support in the development of measures for each Superblock as well as guidance with participation processes.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Municipality initiated the intervention and several city council departments are working on it. Primarily, the mobility and urban design departments of the local administration.
The local government formed a technical secretariat which is leading the program.
Furthermore district administrations are playing a counseling role and members (which can also be members of the local political parties) sometimes are actively part of the district working group providing expertise etc.

Moreover, the Catalan government and the public authorities “Metropolitan Area of Barcelona “and the “Metropolitan Transport Authority” are involved with the formulation of the programme on the city level.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Urban Ecology Agency: a consortium of the City Council of Barcelona, the Municipal Council and Metropolitan Area of Barcelona, and the Barcelona Provincial Council. Its role is to diagnose every neighbourhood where Superblocks are implemented and to aid with technical solutions that could improve the neighbourhoods' sustainability.
|}

==='''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.'''===

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local peculiarities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

Citizen participation happens at the neighbourhood level within the city-wide plan to implement Superblocks. There is a standard procedure for involving different stakeholders and citizens that is followed for each Superblock. It can be characterized in nine distinctive steps (SMARTEES_01: A120):
*Definition and analysis of the area
*Internal work by the Technical Secretariat
*Technical work with the districts
*Work with the Promotional Group
*Participation of specific groups
*Participation of local residents
*Approval of Action Plan
*Drafting projects with suitable protocol and participation according to type of initiative
*Implementing the initiatives
The process itself is the same over the different districts, but the approval ratings from citizens and their view on their respective Superblock varies for each context. The implementation of a Superblock itself did not seem to be up for debate, as it was integrated into the Urban Mobility Plan, but rather was more controversial in how it could be implemented.
The municipality defines its general establishment process of Superblocks in two bigger phases: ''add the graphs''

Over the course of the project, participation became increasingly open and informal, as resistance in some neighbourhoods led to adaptations in the process. The Technical Secretariat designed this participatory process in the beginning, but politicians were too eager to start implementing the program and started implementation in Poblenou without any kind of participation process (Interview_6:01). When the city council decided on making the first physical changes in Poblenou, they were met with public outrage. This steered the project in a more participatory direction and was crucial for key learnings of this project. (Interview_6:05)

The meeting minutes and a protocol for the deliberative process and public meetings are published on the website of the municipality for transparency (SMARTEES_01: 45).

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

The city of Barcelona always had leadership over the whole project. The Technical Secretariat (see Q. 22; Q24) is in charge of the Superblock Programme, which includes only three or four public servants (members of the city council) as well as people from urban designing/planning companies (Interview). Therefore, it relies on the help of different consultants, which provide support in defining the measures to be implemented (SMARTEES_01: 44).

The Urban Ecology Agency has a key role in the project because of its charismatic leader Salvador Rueda (SMARTEES_01: A122). In fact, the idea of Superblocks originates from Salvador Rueda (TheGuardian_01). Especially in the beginning, the Urban Ecology Agency was very important in designing the Superblocks, but now they perform ecological diagnoses of the areas for new Superblocks.

Launched by the City Council, local actors, neighbourhood stakeholders, and citizens are involved in a co-designing process to develop the action plan that “should be” approved by the district political body (SMARTEES_01: A122). These processes are formalized in local working groups where different stakeholders can participate and which presents the Local Action Plan to the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A121).

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

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

Citizens at the earliest stages (see q.14).

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

In Poblenou, politicians wanted to implement changes to the neighbourhood without waiting for a participation process, which was being designed at the time by the Technical Secretariat. The missing participation resulted in local resistance from the neighbourhood. In response, the project participation became increasingly open and informal to accommodate citizens more.

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

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

One of the main issues was that streets had lost many of their traditional functions, i.e. as spaces for children's games, local resident gatherings, strolls, resting, financial exchanges, sport, culture, and protests, because they had developed into spaces only used for transit. Additional issues identified over the previous decades included rising air-pollution levels, traffic noise, road-accident rates, a lack of greenery, and overall decline in citizens' quality of life. (Ajuntament_01: 7).
Barcelona had developed different integrated plans to tackle these issues and additionally embedded them into global issues such as climate change and loss of biodiversity. Superblocks are thus one of the measures of a systematic change of Barcelona.
SMARTEES (01: 42) reported that a critical attitude towards the management of environmental issues in their city started with people from the municipality participating in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Summit) in 1992. Environmental awareness and a holistic management strategy for ecological issues in the city were among key drivers of the Superblock Programme.

==='''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]])'''===

Very important for the implementation of the Superblocks is the so called “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability,” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 organizations (large and small enterprises, community groups, professional associations, political parties and educational institutions). It was evaluated and renewed in 2012, leading to the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability 2012-2022”. (SMARTEES_01: A123).
The goal of this commitment is to improve people's life in the city, in the process improving participation and implementing small-scale interventions. Superblocks are one of several actions that are defined in the document and thereby receive additional support.
In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies besides the Municipal Action Plan e.g. the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), which over 30 mobility-linked organizations have formalized and to which over 100 have signed to improve sustainable mobility (SMARTEES_01: A121); the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018); the Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020); and the Barcelona Commitment to Climate (Ajuntament_01: 22f.), which adopts a common strategy to move toward a unified vision for comprehensive change.

Superblocks are therefore embedded in holistic city-wide changes as well as municipal policies (regulatory, informative, and voluntary frameworks) (See Appendix 1).

==='''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?'''===

Spain is a decentralized state that comprises of three levels of governance: central, regional, and local, and is divided into Provinces and Municipalities (Art. 137 of the Constitution).

Provinces and Municipalities (and Autonomous Communities) run their respective affairs autonomously, which is ensured by Art. 137

Municipalities have considerable authority and decision - making power that is important for the implementation of Superblocks. For example, municipalities with over 50.000 inhabitants are in charge of “Collective urban transportation” and “Urban environmental protection” (CorSpain).

==='''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.)'''===

The eagerness to start “constructing” Superblocks without talking to residents about any of the changes in Poblenou led to a fundamental change of their implementation in other areas of the city and in the general participatory process.

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

The total budget for the Superblock Programme between 2016 and 2019 (“Let´s fill streets with life. Establishing Superblocks in Barcelona”) was 11 million Euros (Ajuntament_01: 40). The cost of the Superblock project in Sant Antoni is 7 million Euros. It is estimated that the implementation of all Superblocks in Barcelona would cost less than 100 million euros (SMARTEES_01: A117).

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

As mentioned, the Technical Secretariat that was formed because of resistance in Poblenou (see Q.24) is now in charge of the project. This improved communication between residents and the government, and assisted in reorganizing the whole process in a better way.

'''''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'''

Most issues are about legitimacy and public awareness and not so much about regulatory framework issues.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Fears of gentrification have arisen, as the process might transform neighbourhoods into “trendy places” (SMARTEES_01: 47).
Perceived safety issues were also raised, especially during late night hours when Superblocks become “deserted” and are frequented by young people drinking on the streets.
In addition, the project in Poblenou apparently led to a sharp drop in merchant sales in the neighbourhood (SMARTEES_01: A128).
Finally, because of unchanged habits in personal vehicle use, traffic on perimeter streets has remained the same. This also relates to insufficient public transport for commuters (ebd.).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

The Superblock in Poblenou was started without any kind of participatory process: the first physical changes in the neighbourhood were done “on a weekend”, which led to a lot of neighbourhood resistance (Interview_7:51)

Groups that emerged in 2016 from different neighbourhoods called the Superblocks unrealistic in a city the size of Barcelona. They warned of a widespread collapse of the city if Superblocks continued to be built, and referred to the then (from their perspective) increasing pollution levels.
In Sant Marti, resistance groups also criticized missing information and the mobility chaos of the Superblock perimeter. It has also been criticized that the urban configuration itself has not changed at all and only feels provisional (SMARTEES_01:46)

Of 1739 residents who voted in May 2017 in a consultation promoted by the Plataforma d'Afectats of the Superilla de Poblenou (a platform against the Superblock in Poblenou), 87% voted against its implementation in their district (SMARTEES_01: 46).

*'''d. Finances'''

The project in general is deemed a low-cost solution. However investment was more substantial for some Superblocks, such as that in Saint-Antoni, because some roads and sidewalks had to be newly constructed.
Some critique called for more investment by the city councils, as they were skeptical that low-cost solutions could be truly beneficial (SMARTEES_01: 47).

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

The implementation of Superblocks is taking far longer than expected and it still only involves small parts of the city . This is partially due to the participatory processes that were adapted by the municipality after facing resistance in Poblenou. These processes involve multiple stakeholders operating in local working groups to co-design Superblocks in each neighbourhood (see Q. 24). According to one technician, there are “about 100 areas already pacified, where Superblocks could be created quickly and without social contestation.” (SMARTEES_01: A127).

In a few cases, the local district council acted against the implementation of their Superblock, thus strengthening project resistance (SMARTEES_01: A129).

== 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?
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Municipality adopted a post-intervention participatory process and engaged in dialogue with resident associations and institutions (e.g schools, kindergartens) in order to improve their plans (getting insights from residents about which streets to reopen for traffic etc.) (Interview)
|-
| Citizen resistance in Poblenou
| Local working groups were created to steer the process for each neighborhood, wheich would co-design with residents and local actors to improve legitimacy in other areas and give residents more agency. (Interview)
|-
| Different fears of negative consequences of Superblocks by residents (e.g. unsafety at night ..)
| The municipality is conducting Measurements/Surveys and empirical research in existing Superblocks to gain insights about the interventions' impact, the results of which they can present to residents of other potential Superblocks. This can help in breaking misperceptions about negative consequences. The SMARTEES team is currently conducting research on the topic of safety at night in Poblenou, along with general perceptions about Superblocks elsewhere (Interview)
|}

== 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.'''===

This programme proves that is not always necessary to implement huge changes nor invest large sums of money in order to improve the quality of life in a city. Small-scale or low-cost actions are sometimes just as effective and far easier to implement.

Observed outcomes include (SMARTEES_01: A125):
*Habitability: 25,129 m2 of new public space without cars have been gained, 349 benches have been installed, 2,483 m2 of playgrounds for children have been created.
*Mobility: The number of cars that access the streets on a daily basis has gone down from 2,218 to 932 vehicles / day. The area for pedestrians has increased by 80%, and the area for cars reduced by 48%. Unregulated car parking spaces have decreased (from 401 to 74) while cyclist meters have increased.
*Green spaces and biodiversity: The green area has increased by 91% from 9,722 m2 to 18,632 m2. 176 units of trees have been planted.
*Economic activity: The number of economic activities on the ground floor has gone up from 65 to 85.
*Public housing: A public housing building is being constructed in the central area of the Superblock by the Municipal Housing Trust.

Equally as important are observed changes in the lifestyles of residents (SMARTEES_01: A126). Several residents have reported an increase in the personal use of bikes while reducing use of private cars/motorbikes. Biking has become a trend as it is perceived safer with the lower numbers of cars around.

== 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.'''

The municipality mentions that the implementation of Superblocks builds on several city-wide plans from the past such as the:
*Cerdà Plan
*County Plan (1953)
*The General Metropolitan Plan (1977) - the “current framework”
*The Street Plan (1986)
*Re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral
*The Mobility Plan for Vila de Gràcia (2003) (Ajuntament_01: 8f.)

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

The municipality reports that taming the passage of cars based on blocks is not a new idea. Other examples can be seen in:
*proposals for neighbourhood units
*ideas for environmental areas and traffic management published by English engineer Colin Buchanan<ref>Bianconi M., Tewdwr-Jones M. (2013): The form and organisation of urban areas: Colin Buchanan and Traffic in Towns 50 years on. In: The Town planning review 84(3):313-336.</ref>.
*the woonerfs in the Netherlands<ref>https://www.naturespath.com/en-us/blog/woonerf-the-dutch-solution-to-city-planning/.</ref>.

Barcelona was the first city to implement Superblocks, but today the idea is very common across Spain. There is a lot of exchange about the implementation of Superblocks between cities. Barcelona has an especially strong inter-city partnership with Vitoria-Gasteiz, which has a Superblock Programme (SUMP - Sustainable Mobility Plan) that is reorganizing the city in 77 Superblocks. This plan started after Barcelona's, in 2008 and will end in 2023 (SMARTEES_01: A95).
Both cities are continuing to support each other through ii) legitimacy, iii) knowledge sharing, learning and peer support. Barcelona profits from the experiences learned in Vitoria-Gasteiz (SMARTEES_01: A109).

=== 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'''

Technical knowledge about how to physically change the existing structure of blocks was originally implemented in the Cerdà Plan (19th century).

Numerous experiences on how to reclaim space for pedestrians have been reported useful to the intervention, especially those based on developments from the Street Plan of 1986 (Ajuntament_01: 10). Much like the current debates surrounding Superblocks, during the first re-developments of Portal de l’Àngel and Plaça de la Catedral, merchants were worried that making streets only accessible to pedestrians would lead to a drop in sales (Ajuntament_01:10).
Learning to respond to resistance against implementation with process adaptation instead of halting the project was critical.

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

It is difficult to measure the exact content and learnings from partnerships with other cities, as exchanges are rather informal but steadily happening.

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

From the implementation of the intervention itself:
The municipality had to learn the importance of providing enough, place-specific and reliable data about the proposals for each neighbourhood. This is important to break any misperceptions and better communicate the benefits of the project.
In addition, it is crucial to connect the Superblock proposal with the overall ambitions to tackle specific issues on a city-wide scale (SMARTEES_01: 48).

Furthermore the ability to adapt certain parts of the Superblock invtervention in cooperation with stakeholders from different fields and local residents has been one of the key learnings for the municipality (Interview_31:05).

Best practices about participatory processes have been developed based on experiences (especially in coping with resistances) include:
*engaging people in deliberative processes
*information and communication strategies and channels
*the use of ICT technologies (e.g., GIS maps) for illustrating main changes proposed at the neighbourhood level
*maintaining a coherent discourse and practice
*building trust to accomplish goals while being open to peoples proposals (SMARTEES_01: A123).

Janet Sanz, a city councillor and today's “Deputy Mayor for Ecology, Urban Planning and Mobility” stressed that "listening to the neighbourhood has been the main learning of this project” (El Periodico).

=== 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?'''===

In order to reduce conflict and resistance, the Technical Secretariat (in Poblenou):
*Created new channels for communication
*Improved participatory process (citizens were invited to formulate improvements in the design of the Superblocks)
*Entered into a negotiation process between supporters and critics of the intervention

This lead to the implementation of certain changes, such as preventing private vehicles and public transport from entering Superblocks.

The Technical Secretariat also became important in communicating with other cities, as it reportedly gave advice and shared knowledge with representatives from New York and Copenhagen (SMARTEES_01: 50).

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

The resistance in Poblenou fundamentally changed the way in which Superblocks are implemented. As a critical point, newly created local working groups give residents and other stakeholders the platform to express issues and co-create their neighbourhood (Interview). Speculatively, this might also change the way other projects in Barcelona could be designed in the future, although it is still too early to measure this (Interview).

==='''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.'''===

*Face-to-Face meetings (all actors)
*Field visits / meeting the locals (Workshops organized by city council with city technicians, politicians and residents) (SMARTEES_01: A119).

== 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]'''

Barcelona's Superblock program recognized internationally; many other cities are in contact with Barcelona to learn from their experience.
Barcelona has received a lot of media attention over the last couple of years from e.g The New York Times (2016)<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/what-new-york-can-learn-from-barcelonas-superblocks.html?_r=1.</ref>, The Guardian (2019<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/10/barcelonas-car-free-superblocks-could-save-hundreds-of-lives.</ref>), El Pais (2018)<ref>https://elpais.com/ccaa/2018/09/29/catalunya/1538246791_684437.html .</ref>, Deutschlandfunk (2016)<ref>https://www.deutschlandfunknova.de/beitrag/superblocks-in-barcelona.</ref>, Die Zeit (2018<ref> https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2018-04/barcelona-verkehr-problem-autofahrer-smart-data.</ref>) or very extensively from VOX<ref>https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/9/18300797/barcelona-spain-superblocks-urban-plan.</ref>.

The New York Times and Vox are suggesting possibilities to replicate the Superblock idea, the New York Times article is called “What New York Can Learn From Barcelona’s ‘Superblocks’” (NewYorkTimes_01). Similarly, VOX is suggesting the possible replicability of the Superblock idea in Portland, Oregon. An interviewee from Bloomberg Associates sees potential in Washington, DC, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago as they already have grid patterns, walkable blocks, and suffer from air and noise pollution. She also sees potential in several smaller cities, as “just about every city or town has some central area with remnants of a block pattern”(VOX_02).

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

Districts and city-wide plans, dense cities.

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

Media, urban planners, researchers.

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

VOX mentions different limits to transferability, especially in regards to US cities:
*Cities tend to be too wide and focused around interstates and freeways
*Missing density and walkability
*Missing short, regular blocks, orthogonal streets, and mixed-use zoning
*Missing familiarity with urban transformations and civic pride (VOX_02). Americans are so accustomed to the absence of walkable and accessible public spaces they barely can express what they are missing.

These factors are especially prominent in the US but can be applied to a lot of European cities, as well.

Also interesting is the relationship between the suburbs and hurdles to reduce cars on the roads:
Suburbs with clear property borders and separated dwellings means less density, less walkability, and slower and less frequent public transport. This leads to a dependance on private vehicles as a predominant form of mobility.

The idea of vibrant, public spaces then does not really work if there is not sufficient density around them: “They become internal tourist destinations, places residents drive to visit” (VOX_02).

==='''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> '''===

SMARTEES has a large report on all kinds of issues related to the implementation of Superblocks. There is specific section on “Critical issues and How Critical issues have been overcome” (SMARTEES_01: 45f); as well as specific stories (an extra info box) that show how exactly certain project processes developed e.g resistance in Poblenou (SMARTEES_01: A129f.).
As mentioned, there is also a lot of media coverage around Barcelona's implementation of Superblocks, which have reported how other cities could learn from the challenges Barcelona faced (NewYorkTimes_01).

SMARTEES is actively trying to build networks between Barcelona and other Spanish cities and thereby creating ways to formalize learning and sharing. SMARTEES wants to develop policy scenario workshops where cities can discuss next steps for future Superblock interventions (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Barcelona will be part of these workshops). The goal is to bring researchers and actors from the cities together to discuss lessons learned, strategize on alternative approaches, and find best practices to transfer that knowledge to future implementations.

==='''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”?)'''===

Within Spain, the idea of Superblocks is spreading to other topologically diverse cities such as A Coruña, Ferrol,Viladecans and El Prat (SMARTEES_01: A49).

SMARTEES report that representatives of New York and Copenhagen have already visited Barcelona and are advised by the Technical Secretariat (SMARTEES_01: 50).

Other cities in the world such as Melbourne, Toronto, Lisbon, Quito, Buenos Aires are also interested in the Superblock Programme and are in contact with the Agencia de Ecologia Urbana. Seattle is also reportedly considering implementing its first Superblock, which was brought to the table by Seattle Councilwoman Teresa Mosqueda (CapitolHill_01).

A lot of other cities in the world (from Japan, China, India, South Korea, Canada, Ecuador, Mexico and Moscow) have requested information on Superblocks (SMARTEES_01: 50).

== 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?

The Superblock model developed a new strategy to facilitate public participation, pursuing co-responsibility as one of the core strategies of the programme (SMARTEES_01: 43). Other long-term consequences are not yet foreseeable, as this project only started relatively recently and will be ongoing for several years.
It will be interesting to see if there are going to be institutional changes because of the Superblocks Programme. SMARTEES is trying to evaluate these as part of their project.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

Barcelona has a long history public engagement and has formal structures for participation in place, such as the Conseils de Barri (SMARTEES_01: 43) (VOX_02).

==='''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?'''===

This intervention shows how important it is to be able to adapt existing plans to local contexts.
There could possibly be long-term changes in the way the municipality interacts with residents for different programmes beyond Superblocks. Therefore, the lessons learned from the Superblock intervention could be a critical moment of change for the city (Interview).

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!
== 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]]

Community led affordable housing in Brussels

2021-03-08T14:46:54Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings| '''A new take on affordable housing through community owned and developed dwellings''']].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Visit cltb.be/en/contact-3 for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

Community Land Trust Brussels operates within the Brussels Capital Region of Belgium (at the neighbourhood scale, especially the Anderlecht, Molenbeek, and Schaarbeek municipalities, with completed and planned housing projects all over the Brussels Capital area).

CLTB is social real estate developer that builds affordable housing projects on collectively-owned land in Brussels for people with limited means. It purchases land and engages with future residents and community partners to co-create affordable housing (CLTB website_ what do we do).

==='''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.]'''===

Housing

==='''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]'''===

Provide decent housing (quality, sustainable, secure, affordable) to Brussels residents; increase community cohesion; empower residents to gain more control over shaping their communities (CLTB website_vision and mission).

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

Associations for affordable and sustainable public housing in Brussels first learned about the Community Land Trust model at a convention in 2008. They visited an example in the US in 2009. In 2010, a group of 15 associations created and signed a charter for the establishment of a CLT in Brussels. After a feasibility study supported by the Brussels regional government between 2011-2012, it was formally supported by the Housing Minister and given a grant to begin operations for the upcoming fall. The CLT’s first and only building so far (Quai de Mariemont in Molenbeek) was completed in September 2015. Currently, three developments are in construction and five more are planned. (CLTB website_our history).

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

Hybrid governance mode - the idea and motivation came from non-government actors, but it was made a reality via municipal governmental support and institutionalization (inclusion of the CLT model in the housing bill of the Brussels Capital Region and making the CLT an operator of the Housing Alliance investment program for new affordable housing) (CLTB website_our history). The CLT and its associated foundation have both residents, civil society, and public officials on their boards (CLTB website_ our 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> '''===

It fills all of the criteria for desirable WP5 interventions. It is an interesting example of hybrid governance, where non-governmental actors sought to serve a need for communities and local governments empowered and adopted their initiative. It is also one of the first CLT models implemented in Europe. One reservation about this intervention is that it is explicitly focused on justice, whereas environmental sustainability is less important (although still present).

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

CLTB website and project materials from the Interreg program’s Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities project. Most information is from the CLTB website (CLTB website) and several SHICC case study documents (Interreg_01; Interreg_02) and CLTB annual reports ( Interreg_04 and Interreg_05). Additional information was provided by CLTB co-founder and current coordinator, Geert De Pauw, during a personal interview.

== 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).'''

CLTB was studied in the EU’s Interreg project, Sustainable Housing for Inclusive and Cohesive Cities (Sept 2017-Sept 2020), which supports and studies four CLT’s in Europe (Brussels, Ghent, Lille, and London). SHICC aims to “‘prove the concept’, create a supportive local, regional and national policy, funding and regulatory environment for CLTs and build a movement across the region” (SHICC Project_home).

*'''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]], [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]], [[Right to housing]].

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

No.

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

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

Intervention proponents have been vocal about the lack of affordable decent housing for low-income people in Brussels, particularly due to a small number of public social housing units and rapidly increasing housing prices between 2000 and 2010 (CLTB website_our history). This problematization comes from the low-income groups themselves, since they are engaged with the various associations and CLTB to express their needs (De Pauw).

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

Yes. Justice is central to their vision and mission: the intervention provides decent housing and empowerment to marginalized, low-income groups by co-creating their communities (see Q3).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

This intervention was initiated by activists from various housing and neighbourhood associations in the Brussels Capital area (Buurthuis Bonnevie, a community center, and CIRE solidarity savings group were listed in particular). After this initial interest was sparked, a smaller group of actors (unnamed representatives from this group of associations) was involved in CLT-specific learning and research. More than 15 associations signed onto the charter for the establishment of a Community Land Trust in Brussels in 2010. Afterwards the local government became more involved and the intervention took off (CLTB website_ our history).

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

Low-income residents of Brussels, communities in which projects are implemented, housing-insecure individuals in other cities (if CLTB is able to prove the concept and inspire more CLTs).

==='''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
| x
| Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
| x
| The Community Land Trust Brussels manages and leads the intervention (CLTB website_our governance)
Wide variety of member associations work together with residents and CLTB to develop projects

|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
| x
| Housing fund Brussels (cooperative society) provides mortgages to the prospective buyers (CLTB website_partners)
|-
| For profit entreprises
| x
| Various private firms (i.e. Architects, contractors, etc.) provide their services, expertise, or financial support, or act as a member of the CTLB general assembly (CLTB website)
|-
| Local/regional government
| x
| The Housing Minister of the Brussels Capital Regional Government provides 2m eu/year in funding (CLTB website_support)
Public service members sit on board of CLT (CLTB website_our governance)
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
|
|
|-
| Supranational government
| x
| EU Interreg project provides funding
EU Urban Innovative Actions program provides funding
(CLTB website_support)
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| x
| Public Utility Foundation CLTB purchases and owns land which is managed by the CLTB not for profit (CLTB website_our governance)
Public Utility Foundation 4 Wings Foundation funding support (CLTB website_support)
Residents of housing projects (current and future) sit on CLT board and participate in co-creation (CLTB website_CLT model)
|}

==='''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.'''===

Firstly, the ability of many (15) community associations to self-organize and present a united appeal for the establishment of the CLTB was very important. Second, the productive and early engagement of the housing associations with the local government of Brussels was crucial. It resulted in formal approval and funding by the Brussels government needed to launch the intervention. Third, early involvement (via workshops, meetings, etc) of the target group in need of housing was very important - it allowed CLTB to see that their proposal was an answer to the target group's needs, and it gave a sense of legitimacy by facilitating this expression of need (confirmed by De Pauw).

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

Citizens, as members of the various housing associations, inspired and organized the intervention. They continue to be a central actor in the co-creation of the projects and residents make up one third of the CLT board members (CLTB website_ our governance). This is a highly participatory intervention. Future residents work together to guide the development of their dwellings, and current residents are responsible for their buildings’ management.

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

Community-based decision making in occurs in different forms. The CLTB NPO is directed by a mix of building owners, prospective buyers, CLT members, associations, neighbours, and representatives from the government. For each housing project, future and current residents have high levels of responsibility; their voices are central to decision making. There is also an annual general assembly where CLT members meet (active members have certain voting rights).

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

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

Since the intervention is so community-centered and prioritizes inclusion, very few (marginalized) social groups are excluded. However, individuals must meet certain admission conditions, the same as those for normal municipal social housing admittance, to be given a CLTB residence spot (Interreg_02:2). Therefore, these other groups are excluded (i.e. medium income groups, young people with unstable employment, elderly) (Interreg_02:9). Also, there is currently a long waiting list, so no new candidates can be registered (CLTB website_get a CLTB home).

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

Admission conditions are necessary to ensure that the most vulnerable are given priority, as there is excess demand for CLTB housing. Outcomes are unclear and there are no reports about work being done that cater to groups who do not meet admission conditions. Although there are other ways to participate, such as becoming a member or volunteer with CLTB.

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

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

Brussels’ housing crisis in the early 2000s (increased rent prices, not enough social housing, policy focus on homeownership) spurred action from local associations, which then snowballed into the BLT intervention (CLTB_our history).

==='''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]])'''===

Unfavourable housing and rental policies at the regional and national level were presumably influential in the motivation to establish the CLTB, since they were/are offering inadequate support for lower income demographics. Nationally, housing policies have largely benefited homeowners over private renters, in particular those in social housing (i.e. national housing budgets are mostly allocated to private owners, and significantly less is allocated to social housing and the rental market) (OECD paper). Social housing has been placed under the responsibility of Belgium’s regional government since 1980. While there are regional and national plans to increase the stock, there remains big social housing shortfalls (Social housing in Europe; Facets of housing).

Some specific policies include: the Brussels Housing Code, within which the CLT was entrenched in 2013 by the Brussels Capital Region (Regulatory policy type), and the Region’s ‘Alliance Habitat’ investment plan, which gives 2 million euros per year in subsidies to the CLTB (Economic policy type).
Low-carbon building standards set in 2015 by the Brussels Capital Region are influential, since they require all new construction to meet a certain passive building standard. This includes CLTB projects (Interreg_01:5).

==='''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 Belgian Federal State has three regions, one of which is the Brussels Capital Region. The regions are responsible for providing affordable housing, which has enabled and motivated the Brussels Capital Region to be highly involved and supportive of the CLT intervention (Interreg_02:1).

==='''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.)'''===

The hybrid intervention is possible due to positive interactions between housing associations and the Brussels Capital Region government. The associations were eager to engage with the government to quickly institutionalize the intervention, rather than attempting to grow it on their own. And the regional government (a social democracy) was responsive to their interests, conducting a feasibility study upon their request (before adopting it later on) (CLTB website_our history).

Compared to colleagues implementing CLTs in other places, CLTB proponents feel lucky that there is a close relationship between civil society groups and local authorities in Brussels. In Brussels there is a strong and well-organized civil society, especially in the housing sector, and there are a lot of innovative community housing association groups that receive government funding. One reason for this government-civil sector collaboration is that BCR is a small territory with the same capacity as the other two regions in Belgium. Housing is dependent on the city and thus supports close relationships between civil society groups and authorities (De Pauw).

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

Financial assistance in the start up phase included: a 150,000 euro feasibility study (from the Regional government), 10,000 from the RénovAssistance Foundation, support from the King Baudouin Foundation for the first years of operation expenses, and subsidized jobs funded by the Region.

Current financial arrangements include an annual 2 million euro subsidy from the Region, which allows the CLT foundation to purchase land and contribute towards 40% of building construction. The other 60% is derived from households’ mortgages (provided from Brussels Housing Fund). CLTB’s operational budget is mainly funded through various grants, membership fees (10euros per month), ground leases (10euros per household per month), crowd funding, and donations. The financial arrangements listed above are more complex than this and are further detailed in the SHICC 2019 report (Interreg_02).

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

No.

'''''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'''

Because the intervention is supported through a regulatory framework, there are few major obstacles posed to implementation. One barrier, however, is the lack of funds provided for non-residential spaces (like gardens or community spaces) in the Regional subsidies. These components are important to the CLT’s concept for thriving communities (Interreg_02:5).

Another implementation barrier includes the administrative delays to win public tenders, obtain planning permissions, and build new housing, leading to subsequent delay in the construction phase (Interreg_04: 3; Interreg_05: 5). This has resulted in some prospective residents waiting for years to receive housing.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

n/a It has legitimacy by being linked with government support and rooted in community needs.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

''n/a Demand exceeds supply. This is a popular intervention. ''

*'''d. Finances'''

Sustainable and reliable funding to support growing operations and more developments presumably poses the biggest obstacle to CLTB. It is heavily reliant on public funding, which could dry up if political priorities change (Interreg_02:9). Additionally, the current staff capacity is being stretched thinly and funding for more positions will need to be acquired in order to handle upscaled program implementation. Finally, as operations grow, the capacities of CLTB’s partner associations will also be stretched, and will therefore also need increased funding (Interreg_02:9).

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

Community building - which is a major dimension of the project - among prospective residents (before moving in the neighborhood) is more difficult for large communities, including people still on the waiting list (candidate resident) and people who are not yet engaged in a concrete project (Interreg_04: 4).

== 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. Inability to fund non-residential spaces
| So far, the non-residential spaces that have been created were funded via higher lease costs to renters. But the Region may begin to support these spaces if the CLTB demonstrates that its pilot projects have sustainable business models (Interreg_02:5,9).
|-
| 2. Heavy reliance on (a single source of) public funding
| Suggestions to overcome this include looking for different investment (from private actors or citizens), or funding campaigns (Interreg_02:9).
|-
| 3. Stretched capacity of CLT staff and partner associations
| CLTB is financing more full-time staff positions via various charitable foundations (Interreg_02:9). No reports on how CLTB partners will increase their capacity.
|-
| 4. Administrative delays to obtain planning permits and build new housing.
| It was not possible to speed up the administrative procedures. However, while some prospective residents did not yet receive housing, they have actively engaged in building community in their future neighborhood (Interreg_04: 3). In that sense these delays did not discourage prospective residents nor undermine community-building processes.
|-
| 5. Difficulties in building community in large groups of prospective (candidate) residents.
| In 2017, for the second time, CLTB has organized events allowing candidate-residents to meet and get to know each other, as well as to begin engaging in projects. In collaboration with other local organizations, thematic workshops have been organized (i.e. energy, finances, house reparations). In 2016, within the framework of the project “Co-create”, CLT has experimented with a new tool called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) for community building.
|}

== 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.'''===

From Interreg_02: CLT has 2 completed projects (9 units inhabited since 2015 and 32 units inhabited since the end of 2019), 4 projects in construction, and 5 projects being studied, equalling 164 units in development with eventual resale prices at 25-50% of the market price. It has 600 members (400 candidate housing owners, 170 supporting members, and 30 nonprofit organizations).

Since it is more focused on social sustainability, the intervention has so far not demonstrated substantial outcomes regarding environmental sustainability. The first completed project was built according to the Brussels Capital Region’s low-carbon standards (Interreg_01:5). However, this was required by law and not motivated by the project itself. Several of the planned projects include “green” features like community gardens and other communal green spaces, and one in particular is planned to be built within the upcoming Tivoli Green City quarter of Brussels.

== 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.'''

CLTB builds from experiences in experiments for alternative affordable housing in Brussels such as the L'Espoir project (one of the first passive solar, energy efficient housing buildings in Brussels, housing 14 low income migrant families since 2009), and a solidarity savings group in 2004 that allows low-income families to pool funds to purchase a house (CLTB website_our history).

In more detail from interview with De Pauw:

The L’Espoir project was successful, but CLTB proponents learned that this kind of thing is not possible without public support (subsidies, grants). L'Espoir started with nothing and spent a lot of effort trying to get support. There is a need for public money from the beginning. At several points through the project they almost stopped due to lack of funding. This is especially problematic for participants because it becomes quite risky. CLTB proponents also wanted to find a more sustainable way of using public grants, since L'Espoir residents who want to sell their home can do it at any price and retain any project, which is not sustainable. They discovered the CLT model as a way of introducing non-speculative elements.

Regarding the saving groups, proponents such as De Pauw had already been working with CIRE, who was running the savings group. These groups worked well, except when house prices increased. Therefore, proponents were interested in a more sustainable model that could be affordable for low-income groups.

In summary, CLTB drew lessons from what worked and from what couldn't be solved e.g. the way participation is organized in preparation for projects is very much inspired by what was done in L'Espoir and the saving groups.

Especially within the CLTB, projects learn from each other: “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)

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

Housing association members first learned about the CLT model from a convention on Housing Cooperatives in Lyon, France. They then visited a successful CLT example - the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont (CLTB website_our history).
The CLTB is also part of the SHICC EU-funded project, which aims to have a broad movement of CLTs across Europe and connects CLTB with the network of other CLTs. The project financially supports the selected CLTs and provides some knowledge resources (This support hits all four types of TRANSIT’s empowerment mechanisms).

In more detail from De Pauw interview:

Champlain was essential for CLTB success.
"They helped us with everything we wanted … When writing lease contracts we could use a lot of their documents, experience (despite being in a different context) and we had a lot of exchange with them and they were really supportive so that was really important, and still is. At least once a year we call them with a question. It was also a way of showing that what we wanted was possible and not just an idea."
Champlain proponents also came to Brussels several times and their CEO did a video message at a CLTB press conference, which was very important.

=== 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'''

As previously mentioned, one crucial piece of knowledge from the L’Espoir project was that significant public investment is needed to make affordable housing possible at a larger scale. Although they were able to raise funds to cover the reduced contribution of low-income residents, this was seen as an unsustainable model in the long term.

From the solidarity savings groups, the intervention learned that alternative savings systems cannot overcome high housing prices, which dissuaded them from adopting a similar approach (CLTB website_our history).

CLTB learned from internal reflections while replicating projects about their participatory procedures. In the beginning, they reproduced what had been done in L'Espoir, and actively involved participants from the start, when they bought the land or even before. They stopped after the pilot projects because of numerous risks and difficulties associated with building in Brussels, e.g. having to deal with a builder bankruptcy, having to wait two years for building permission, etc.. Despite being interesting to engage from the start, proponents decided it was too risky and instead compose the groups once they have the building permit (De Pauw).

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

The specific nature and content of what the CLTB drew from during their visit to the Champlain Housing Trust is not clear in the project documentation. This is the only mention of the “partnership”/”transfer”: “In September 2009, four members of this group were invited … to participate at an international study visit to the Champlain Housing Trust in Burlington, Vermont, a CLT that had just won a United Nations World Habitat Award. After a week, they returned to Brussels, more than ever convinced that the CLT model might be what they were looking for” (CLTB website_our history). The CLTB did adopt Champlain’s governance model, whereby the board of trustees is composed of one third current/future residents, one third civil society, and one third public officials (Interreg_02:1). The CLTB also adopted Champlain’s resale mechanism (Interreg_01:7).

However, the interview with De Pauw revealed the large amount of learning and exchange between Champlain and CLTB. See Q26b.

Regarding SHICC, their project website resources include: financial guides, local advocacy toolkit, and case studies of all the participating CLTs.

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

None specifically reported, but since CLTs are a relatively novel and complex intervention, there was likely a big learning curve. Areas of acquired knowledge could include legal aspects and procedural elements: “The last two years, we invested a lot in strengthening our organization, developing legal models, procedures, etc.” (CLTB website_our history).

=== 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 context of Brussels is characterized by high housing prices and low volume of social housing stock. The previous learned content may have caused the intervention to seek significant public investment in order to help it prosper at a wider scale (L’Espoir project) AND help the Regional government fulfill its duty towards social housing. The observed necessity to reduce cost of housing, and not just pool funds to buy expensive housing (solidarity savings groups), may have caused CLTB to source its land from a Regeneration scheme that allows municipalities to sell it below market price - aka the CLTB looked into strategies to lower its costs wherever possible in order to make the housing products more affordable.

Finally, the Champlain Trust model was adapted slightly to fit the Brussels context, for example taking the necessary steps of making it compliant with the relevant laws/policies (e.g. the 2015 low carbon standards). While everything from Champlain needed to be tweaked to fit the Brussels context, it needed less adaptation than one could imagine, despite having a completely different legal system (CLTB is under civil law, Champlain under common law). The major difference, however, was in the initiatives' aims: CLTB needed to accommodate their model for their goal to target lowest income groups. This has required CLTB to adopt a system that is more public than Champlain's to make it accessible. They therefore needed to do a lot of public tendering for architects, builders, etc.. CLTB's pricing system and allocation procedure has also been adapted to reach low-income groups. Additionally, CLTB had more participatory processes than Champlain, since BCR has a rich history of housing association activities (De Pauw).

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

The process of learning and overcoming obstacles is not particularly well-documented in INTERREG project files, but CLTB annual reports contained useful information.

==='''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.'''===

The site visit to Champlain Trust was a particularly important KBA which inspired the CLTB development.
The community building methods called ABCD (Asset Based Community Development), developed by CLTB in the framework of the project “Co-create” and in collaboration with partner organizations and researchers from the Universities of Bruxelles (Interreg_04: 4), further enabled the learning process.

== 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]'''

Yes. The CLTB’s goal is to have many social housing projects created within the Capital Region, and the goal of SHICC project is to create/enable a CLT movement with many replications. The success of the intervention (aka being able to provide decent, affordable housing to those in need) is dependent on it being scalable.

In the section “communicate with our members and with external actors” (Interreg_05: 21), CLTB aims to draw public attention to the project, thereby clarifying its identity for the public, and become a (European) reference for CLT models.

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

Urban contexts within the Brussels Capital Region and North-Western Europe in general, which SHICC has claimed to be in the midst of a housing affordability crisis (Interreg_03).

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

CLTB proponents and SHICC project.

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

None recorded - the project documentation and intervention documentation have an optimistic perspective on CLT transferability.

A possible limit to transferability of the CLT model is that more public funding is needed to meet the needs of low-income groups than those with greater means. Therefore, if this funding weren’t available in other contexts, the CLTB’s aim of helping the most vulnerable residents would be less achievable. While a CLT is possible without their level of public support, it would indeed be more complicated and projects would probably have to change their target group. For example, there are a few middle-class co-housing groups in Belgium that self-label as CLTs, without use of public money (De Pauw).

==='''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 learning process has not been very well-recorded in Interreg project documentation. This documentation has a promotional feel to it, and it mostly describes how the CLTB currently functions. However, the learning process has been well recorded in the CLTB annual reports, which describe current and upcoming projects, their outcomes, and any difficulties and possible solutions to address them.

Regarding how CLTB has made its more general experience accessible to citymakers, it reports various outreach and learning opportunities, see Q33.

==='''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”?)'''===

From the CLTB website: “Since its creation at the end of 2012, the CLTB, the first CLT of Europe, has received widespread interest from local authorities, associations, foundations, international institutions, academics from various European countries (France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Sweden,…). We have already welcomed several delegations and taken part in numerous events abroad. In this way, we are contributing to the model’s distribution on a European and global scale.”

CLTB has improved its communication tools (i.e. social network, website, brochures etc.) and has participated in many international gatherings, especially in Belgium and France. This includes, among others, presentations given at the housing cooperative society in Rennes (Fr), at the members of the European project “Urbamonde,” and at the “Collectif Goed” cooperative project in Anvers (Bel) (Interreg_05:21).

Actual demonstrations of direct transferability can be seen between individual CLTB housing projects in Brussels, which directly learn from each other (see Q26a). In a less direct sense, proponents have seen the increase in new CLT’s since 2010 when the CLTB was getting started and few had yet heard of the model. These CLTs have been successfully implemented in many different contexts because of the model's flexibility and answers many current issues of land, gentrification, and housing crises that are on top of the agenda. A lot of the model's success comes from people looking for alternatives for these issues. Regarding flexibility, it has several elements that can be combined in different ways: it has been used in urban and rural contexts, small and big scales, with or without public funding, and has been initiated by grassroots organizations or governments. However, CLTB proponents question whether these replications are true community land trusts, since many have a low level of participation (De Pauw). An interesting takeaway here is that the model’s flexibility enables transferability, but can dilute the initial aims of the intervention regarding actively engaging and serving the most needy citizens.

For example, in France the CLT model is not bottom-up: federal law was changed to make it possible and projects are initiated by municipalities where the community aspect is often forgotten. However it still includes the main elements of a CLT (separation of land and the building, anti-speculation formulas)(De Pauw).

== 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?

CLTB helped raise a discussion on public land policy and the idea that it should be used in a sustainable way rather than being sold on the markets. This is a real debate at a government level, as well. Additionally, approaches to co-creating housing may be increasing as a result of CLTB, since other more established housing organizations are also giving importance to resident participation. “These are things I think we contributed to change the mindset of”(De Pauw).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

Hybrid governance can be a very successful way of establishing an intervention because it gets the ideas, legitimacy, and motivation from the people and the funding and institutional support from the government. However, interventions sharing the CLTB’s aims seem more context-bound than non-government led interventions because government priorities and resources vary widely.

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!

== 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.
|}

Inner-city community energy in London

2021-03-08T14:27:48Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]!

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Visit repowering.org.uk/contact for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

Repowering, previously called Brixton Energy, in Lambeth Borough of London, England (neighborhood in capital city).

Repowering is a cooperatively owned community energy initiative for multi-unit residential buildings. It began with one project in Brixton, and later became an organization called Repowering, which now actively creates and manages replications of the original project throughout London. It also helps support other community energy projects in London (PATHWAYS_03:4).

==='''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. More specifically, the policy fields of (renewable) energy policy, community energy policy, and fuel poverty policy.

==='''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]'''===

Repowering is promoting the small-scale generation and use of renewable energy among communities in London. Additionally, they are facilitating energy efficiency initiatives and aiming to reduce energy poverty in their project regions while building skills and knowledge about renewable energy via (paid) internships for local youth.
The key goals as stated by the group include:
*start generating renewable energy in Brixton
*develop opportunities for a community investment vehicle
*increase resilience by reducing dependence on big energy companies
*use retained profits to educate residents about energy efficiency
*tackle fuel poverty, and
*provide training and employment for local people.
(TT Brixton)

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

The formation of the original Brixton Energy group and the planning and implementation of the three projects, BES1, BES2, BES3, occurred roughly between 2011-2013 (PATHWAYS_03:6). Since BES3, Repowering London has continued to create its own and engage with others’ community solar initiatives. In May 2018, Repowering installed the world's first blockchain energy trade on a national grid.

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

Non-government led and implemented.
The case is characterized by leadership of non-government actors, primarily community members. However, the Lambeth Council was very supportive (helped build connections and held regular meetings in the beginning stages, provided knowledge in energy and project management, assisted with planning permissions for the projects, financially supported projects through a small fund) (PATHWAYS_03:8). The Council and other local governmental organizations are official partners of the intervention (Repowering website_our partners).

==='''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 intervention is a good example of a successful initiative studied within an EU-funded research project that connects sustainability and justice in an urban setting, and demonstrates the role of local initiatives in energy transitions.

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

PATHWAYS’ in-depth case report on Brixton Energy (PATHWAYS_03) and the current Repowering website (Repowering website) are the main source of information. They are in the Zotero library. An interview in July 2020 with Agamemnon Otero, Co-Founder Brixton Energy complemented the information found from these sources.

== 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).'''

This intervention was documented as a case study within the PATHWAYS project (2013-2016) (PATHWAYS_04). PATHWAYS explored the transition pathways to sustainable, low carbon societies through analysis of select cases using integrated assessment modelling, socio-technical transition analysis, and initiative-based learning. Initiative Based Learning (IBL) was used to study the evolution of Brixton Energy, a cooperatively owned solar energy project in London, England, and the UK’s first inner-city renewable energy co-operative. PATHWAYS studied the gestation, development, and implementation of the initial program, and analyzed its potential for replication and transfer across contexts and scales.

*'''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.'''

[[Energy and Mobility solutions]], [[Governance and participation processes]], [[Policies and practices for inclusion of disadvantaged groups]], [[Sustainable households]]. Brixton case was explicitly highlighted in [[(Impact) evaluation and assessment framework]].

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

No.

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

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

The problematization of energy poverty, and the desire for education, employment, and projects for estates came directly from listening to community needs (Otero interview).

Inequality is most directly shown on Repowering’s website through the concept of energy poverty. Energy poverty occurs when a “household suffers from a lack of adequate energy services in the home” and includes “adequate warmth, cooling, lighting and the energy to power appliances are essential services needed to guarantee a decent standard of living and citizens' health.'’ (EU energy poverty observatory). Since energy poverty is a consequence of low income, healthy standards of living in urban dwellings can be positioned as a social inequality. A more specific component of energy poverty is fuel poverty, which refers to the inability to keep a dwelling adequately heated.

This specific problematization appears to have been raised by Brixton community members during the early stage of the first solar initiative. The team discovered, through door-to-door consultations, that the most important issue for residents was their electricity bills. Therefore, the initiative became more focused on trying to address this via the Community Energy Efficiency Fund (PATHWAYS_03:11).

Repowering also recognizes the need for skill building, employment, and engagement in the area, which faces high unemployment and low income relative to other London boroughs.

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

Yes, addressing energy/fuel poverty and increasing opportunity in the neighbourhood is a strong and explicit motivator behind the intervention, as seen in the intervention’s goals (Q3).

*'''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]]
|
| x
|-
| 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]]
|
| x
|-
| 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 ]]
|
| x
|-
| 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?'''===

It was born out of a Transition Town initiative, TT Brixton, in 2007. There was a specific working group on ‘Buildings and Energy’ whose members (locals with an interest and knowledge about renewable energy) began to meet and discuss possibilities of a local solar project (PATHWAYS_03:8).

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

The benefits are concentrated in the local community, for any individual who wishes to be involved in the project (either by being a shareholder, recipient of community energy efficiency funds, or a youth employed by the project). However, it could be argued that there are larger scale benefits of renewable energy generation regarding climate change mitigation. Additionally, since the intervention has gained attention from, and is working directly with (up to) national-level policy makers, the benefits could be even more widespread, if their influence enables more similar projects.

==='''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
| x
| Transition Town Brixton (community interest company, provided initial platform for the intervention),
Core Brixton Energy team, later the Repowering team (spearheading the intervention, now performing administrative and other organizational tasks)

|-
| For profit entreprises
| x
| Simmons & Simmons (legal advice)
HSBC (tax help)
Southern Solar (installation assistance)

|-
| Local/regional government
| x
|Lambeth Council’s sustainability unit (Running the Low Carbon Zone group)
|-
| Regional organizations
| x
| Various housing boards (i.e. United Residents Housing and the Loughborough Estate Management Board were consulted with, gave permission for the projects )
|-
| National government
| x
| Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (formerly Dpt. Energy and Climate Change), gave Repowering funding from the DECC’s Community Energy Peer Mentoring Fund
Otero was involved in writing national community energy policy
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| x
| Community members (each project is run by a separate community benefit society),
Community non members (participate in outreach events, receive energy advice etc. even if they are not a shareholder)
Other local community groups (helped form the intervention, collaborate with it)
Carbon Leapfrog Charity (enabled initial networking with sustainability professionals)

|}

==='''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.'''===

Enabling configurations for community renewable energy (Stakeholders include the federal government):

The beginning of the UK’s Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program in 2010 created a more friendly environment to small-scale, community-based renewables. This is an indirect impact.

Enabling configurations for community engagement/collaboration (Stakeholders include Lambeth Council and the Brixton team/Repowering):

The local government, Lambeth Council, which had a small group running a Low Carbon Zone, served as an intermediary organization in the beginning, which helped the team organize themselves and contact other relevant groups. The enabling configuration is the connectedness of this Council to various groups in the area. However, this group was small and had minimal capacity.

==='''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 of the intervention from the very beginning. The intervention’s cooperative structure relies upon community engagement in order to function (financial investment, regular meetings, decision-making etc.) and the intervention engages with a wider community base in order to address energy poverty and provide opportunities for employment and learning (Repowering website_home).

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

Each project (BES1, 2, 3) is run by a separate cooperative. Repowering is a community benefit society where decision-making power is horizontally distributed and participatory: “The society is run by its members and a board of directors who come from the local community. Governance of the society is truly democratic as each member has one vote, regardless of the amount they invest” (Repowering website_our model). The larger-picture strategic operations of Repowering and its various projects are run by a full staff team.

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

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

This intervention operates under an inclusive model, since it is a community benefit society, and it reinvests in and engages with the community. However, those who could not afford to invest in the projects would at least be excluded from their financial return.

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

It is necessary to raise capital in order to finance the projects, so this can have exclusionary effects. An impact of this possible exclusion is that only those who are financially capable of investing in the projects are able to receive their benefits (return on investment) and have a formal say (vote) about them. However, the threshold investment to be a member is relatively low (investment pledges for current projects begin at £50), and it is less expensive for a resident to invest than an outsider, so that barrier may not be unsurpassable. Also, the intervention has community workshops and open general meetings, which reduces exclusion. Therefore, exclusion is minimal overall due to open project meetings and community initiatives for those that do not have the means to invest.

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

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

As mentioned, the Transition Town Brixton initiative, which had a specific working group on buildings and energy, triggered the formation of the original community group, ‘Brixton Energy’. There are also a set of broader context conditions which may have triggered the intervention, with the establishment of the FIT scheme likely being influential.

==='''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]])'''===

Municipal level: Various planning and licensing requirements.

National Economic policies: the UK’s Feed-In-Tariff program (enacted in 2010 and cancelled in 2019) was essential for ensuring investor security and therefore the financial viability of the projects.

National Regulatory policies: UK's Fuel Poverty Strategy, UK’s Community Energy Strategy, The Energy Act 2013 (implements the RE Directive), Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, Low Carbon Transition Plan 2009

European Regulatory policies: European Union Renewable Energy Directive 2009, requiring member states to fulfill at least 20% of their total energy needs with renewables by 2020, listed Feed-In-Tariff schemes (such as the one that supported Brixton Energy) as a type of support scheme that could help achieve this target.

Note that only the FIT and the Low Carbon Transition Plan was explicitly mentioned in the documentation (PATHWAYS_03).

==='''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?'''===

There is no single UK constitution, rather a collection of statutes, case law, and other decisions. Under UK law, London is the only city with its own assembly (Greater London Authority Act 1999). Its powers, functions, funding, and responsibilities are determined by laws passed by Parliament. The London Assembly (including Lambeth borough) has limited power over transport, environment, and housing, among others. Lambeth Council’s authority/responsibility to regulate renewable energy projects may be linked with the constitutional powers and responsibilities given to the London Assembly, however more in-depth research is needed to determine this.

==='''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.)'''===

Out of necessity, project proponents interacted a great deal with both local and national governments. According to Otero, relations with the Local Lambeth Council and the national authorities were tough and frustrating, but necessary in order for the intervention to function.

Although the Council’s sustainability unit was supportive, it was under-funded and had limited capacity: "They [Council] put good ideas and engaged people in a tower, and locked them up and we basically found our way to the crevices and dug away with our fingernails to get through the door. It was really tough." Meanwhile, project proponents’ perception of national government was decidedly less positive. The national policy landscape surrounding community energy was initially non-existent, so Otero helped write several national policies: “They put us on every board you could imagine, they gave us MBEs, and then changed their minds! I wrote policy for all three governments, they would listen and say yes yes yes, and then pull the teeth out of it that held the whole thing together, put the pretty pictures that we got on there, then launch it and then not give anybody anything.” Additionally, the national government was seen as somewhat of an adversary, since it made several unfavourable policy changes (FIT reduction than cancellation, cancellation of the seed enterprise investment scheme, and unfavourable re-definition of cooperatives).

These views of and interactions with both national and local governments may have ultimately supported the intervention in an unexpected way: “Since the policy was so unstable, we had to continuously look for new innovation. The only reason why we came up with all these innovations is because I wasn't going to go out like that! What, because the government changes, and everything is changing, I'm going to roll over and die? No. You gotta come up with better solutions.” (Otero interview)

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

The intervention is financed by a cooperative business model. Community members buy shares in the cooperative, which then funds the purchase and installation of renewable energy assets. The returns from these assets (aka from generating energy) are given back to the shareholders, and/or invested in a community fund (for community energy projects). (Repowering website_our model)

The FIT program was a significant contributor to the financial viability of the projects in this intervention. It provided a guaranteed return on investment for a period of 20 years, which then made investing more attractive. While current projects are not impacted by the FIT phase-out, it will force Repowering to find other funding sources to rely on (PATHWAYS_03:16).
Some examples, from BE1 and 3 project manager, Andre Pinho: “ 1) finding seed money through different funding schemes and grants, knowing that these will eventually dry up; or 2) finding councils and local initiatives with money to invest in Repowering London’s expertise.” (PATHWAYS_03:16)
The intervention has also received funding from various sources, such as the previously mentioned Community Energy Peer Mentoring Fund.

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

As mentioned, the FIT program was phased out rapidly and then cancelled, which makes the financing scheme for future projects less viable (since the export tariff and feed-in tariff won’t exist). Other regulatory supports (e.g. seed investment scheme) were also cancelled. Therefore many of the initial enabling conditions for the intervention no longer exist.

'''''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'''

The volatility and eventual cancellation of the national FIT program was a central challenge for the intervention (PATHWAYS_03:16) (see part d). Same with the seed investment scheme cancellation and the re-definition of cooperative such that Repowering was required to identify as a Community Benefit Society instead. Local government regulations (like required planning permissions) were also reported to be an obstacle (PATHWAYS_03:10).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Legitimacy “Obstacle - legitimacy”
This is a novel intervention in a (low income) inner-city context and needed to be proven in order to be seen as a legitimate business model. The newness created investor uncertainty, see part d. Gaining planning permission for the installations from local councils required convincing them that they were a good idea, without any proof, for BES1 (PATHWAYS_03:17).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

A rapidly changing national political landscape reduced trust in federal support for interventions like Repowering, and consequently reduced the faith of local authorities in Brixton’s success. See part d. Engaging the community also proved difficult at first, since the Repowering team had limited experience with it (PATHWAYS_03:10).

*'''d. Finances'''

One notable obstacle was the difficulty raising funds (£58,000) for BES1 from community members. Since it was a new project, with no track record, individuals were hesitant to invest. Additionally, while many made pledges, this proved not to be a reliable indicator of actual financial support. Once BES1 was established, it was easier to find investors for the others because the community had more trust in the organization and had seen an instance of success (PATHWAYS_03:13). Another financial obstacle was the need to work quickly to meet deadlines imposed by the FIT program. The FIT program drastically lowered its tariff rates in early 2012, so Brixton rushed to accredit BES1 under the scheme before this happened. Otherwise, the project would have been guaranteed much lower returns over its 20 year lifetime (PATHWAYS_03:13). In addition, there are regulatory barriers to the community energy model because the current energy framework requires the projects to sell their energy to big suppliers at wholesale costs. Becoming a licensed independent energy supplier themselves so that they could sell directly to customers is very costly (PATHWAYS_03:19).

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

Other identified barriers included navigating “the legal aspects of the scheme” and “defining the company structure and statutes” (PATHWAYS_03:10).

== 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. Unstable/cancelled FIT program
|Some reported options include: Repowering looking for private partners to invest in community projects, and also applying for Repowering to become a licensed electricity provider (PATHWAYS_03:16). There is also a recent pilot project for a peer-to-peer energy trading system in Brixton to see how decentralized energy production could be financially viable in a post FIT landscape (Peer-to-peer Energy Trading in Brixton).
|-
| 2. Initial difficulty gaining trust and navigating planning permissions from local council, stemmed from a lack of proof of concept, creating legitimacy concerns
|Work was done to improve relations/trust with Lambeth council, and Lambeth council helped them navigate through planning permissions. “The main hurdle is often convincing the council’s corporate risk and legal teams. This is best overcome by demonstrating strong fundamentals for a project: financial acumen, social deliverables and resident support. Commitments to social cohesion, education, and reducing fuel poverty are mandated in every political party. Showing that [a] project helps the council to address these issues can bring council support and partnership” (Otero interview Brixton Energy).
They also proved that the business model was viable with BES1: “The greater local exposure to the technology along with Repowering’s positive reputation and credibility through earlier demonstrations further benefited local acceptance and funding for the projects.” (PATHWAYS_03:18)
|-
| 3. Community engagement
|They improved over time by making efforts to listen to local needs and priorities, and got support from the experienced Transition Town group (PATHWAYS_03:11). Engaging residents (youth) with solar panel-making workshops increased engagement with the overall project. Offering payment for their internship program increased participation. It was also essential to engage with "Estate Mamas", middle aged women who lived there and were engaged in the community. "By supporting them, we could count on them with our projects and provide for the community. That is the only thing I have really learned and they were my greatest teachers." (Otero interview)
|-
|}

== 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.'''===

The initiative has resulted in economic gains for the community, although their extent/significance is not clear. These include a 3% return on investment (mainly financed by the FIT program), hiring locals to assist with installations, and training young people in paid internship positions (Repowering website).
The general objectives of the initiative regarding sustainability, as listed in Q1, were to a) start generating renewable energy in Brixton, b) increase resilience by reducing dependence on big energy companies, and c) use retained profits to educate residents about energy efficiency. To date, Repowering has made progress towards these goals and achieved the following: 532kWp of installed solar capacity, 447,358 kWh electricity generated annually, avoided 114 tonnes of GHG emissions annually, and has raised £154,500 for communities to spend on related energy initiatives like efficiency measures (Repowering website_home).
Objectives regarding inequality include a) tackling fuel poverty, and b), providing training and employment for local people. Progress on these general objectives is not easily measurable, however Repowering has thus far, engaged 123 paid interns and employed a handful of locals for the installation of each project. It is unclear what percentage of Repowering’s full time staff are local. The community energy fund amount of £154,500 will have gone towards reducing energy poverty, with unknown (but expectedly positive) impacts.

== 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.'''

BES1 was the first intervention of its kind (inner-city renewable energy cooperative) in London (PATHWAYS_03:23). The intervention built off of the Transition Town movement/network, specifically Transition Town Brixton. The intervention also benefited from various community initiatives: Lambeth Council’s Green Community Champions initiative (iv: visibility and identity by providing a platform for Brixton Energy to hold meetings and build connections) (PATHWAYS_03:8), and the Hyde Farm Climate Action Network in London (reported as “establishing links with other sustainability initiatives”) (PATHWAYS_03:9). However, since it was a unique intervention, most specific learning was up to the proponents: "It wasn't like we got an answer from other people and they helped us out. It was the other way around. We trail-blazed the whole sector." (Otero interview)

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

In its development, Brixton Energy was reportedly advised by other successful models of small-scale community renewable energy, i.e. Ovesco in Sussex. The initiative’s location (inner-city) and business model were unique, but they were still able to benefit from practical advice (mechanism iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support) (PATHWAYS_03:8). However, according to Otero, this advice was minimal and not extremely helpful. Rather, an individual from another company shared a template of how to set up community energy and introduced proponents to other community energy groups in a series of three meetings. However, most learning came directly from listening to community members and through interactions with specific individuals at Lambeth council’s sustainability unit (Otero interview).

=== 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'''

Nothing has been reported on this regarding experiences outside of the intervention, however, BES2 and BES3, and later projects have all been at least partial replications of BES1 and each other. They used accumulated experience to form a systematic project design and management process, which reduced trial and error and sped up the process for later projects. Learning which promoted replicability reportedly included both hard skills, like how to handle the technology, to soft skills, such as how to work effectively with the local council to speed up permitting processes, and how to engage with community members (PATHWAYS_03:18).

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

No reports on specific knowledge gained from peer-to-peer learning with Ovesco and other community energy projects , other than “practical advice” (PATHWAYS_3:10). As Otero indicated, there was not too much peer learning due to the project’s trailblazing nature.

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

Some reported areas of learning during the implementation of BES1 included: project management and legal issues, energy and financial projections, and supplier contacts (PATHWAYS_03:9). Other important learning experiences included understanding the community members’ priorities and interests (for example, door-to-door campaigns revealed that reducing electricity bill costs was important) and that the key to community engagement was the co-production of ideas such that residents felt involved and empowered (PATHWAYS_03:11).

=== 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?'''===

According to the PATHWAYS documentation, Repowering reportedly adapted the model of previous community energy initiatives in the UK to consider its inner-city location and a different financial model (PATHWAYS_3:10). However, Otero reported that the project was entirely unique, and therefore not adapted to the circumstances but entirely built from the bottom up to suit them.

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

Overcoming (or currently handling) obstacles such as the FIT program, via experimenting with new business models such as peer-to-peer trading, highlights the need to be adaptive and resilient in the face of national policy instability. Gaining trust, familiarity, and legitimacy with the community and local government likely helped speed up the learning and implementation process per replicated project (the first project reportedly took 8-9 months, the second 3 months, and the third 1 month (PATHWAYS_3:18)).

==='''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 specific tools were used, however the team has regular meetings and structures for reflection and learning. The team has Monday meetings where they discuss issues, raise questions, and everyone has three minutes to explain what they're doing and highlight any problems they're having, whether it is a systemic issue or a personal team issue. “This way we can lance any boils together once a week.” Then monthly, they do a deep dive to go into any problem areas. Then the volunteer directors will come in and scrutinize any issues that have been raised and spend a couple days working through them (Otero interview).

== 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]'''

Yes, replicability has been central to the intervention, since BES2 and BES3, and later projects have all been at least partial replications of BES1 and each other (PATHWAYS_03:18). Suggestions have also been made by the operators of the peer-to-peer trading pilot (EDF Energy and University College London) that the new business model could be scaled up in the UK and in Colombia (Future energy systems; Transactive energy).

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

The projects have all been replicated in Lambeth borough, London. Additionally, the intention of forming Repowering out of the Brixton Energy initiative was to be able to replicate and scale up the community energy solutions. It currently supports similar projects throughout London (PATHWAYS_03:10). The newer peer-to-peer model is seen as transferable to communities in dense urban areas worldwide (Future energy systems) .

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

Project proponents, the press, and actors in the peer-to-peer pilot.

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

As of 2014: “Repowering believes that the viable penetration of community energy (to its estimated potential of powering 1 million homes in the UK by 2020 (DECC, 2014) will require professionalization; an operating body that can develop at a larger scale; and the streamlining of processes (both community and energy aspects)” (PATHWAYS_03:16).
From this, limits to transferability could be: a) a lack of a more powerful organizational body to coordinate upscaling, and b) learning/implementation processes are still too experimental/messy. The latter of these two limits may have been more recently overcome, since the model has been replicated more times in a variety of contexts within London.

==='''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> '''===

PATHWAYS’ case study report of Brixton had a section called “Replication, learning, and scaling up”. It contained details on how the model was replicated into many projects, and how accumulated learning (about soft and hard project aspects) contributed towards a more systematic process each time. These learning processes were not described in depth.

Regarding how Repowering has made its experience accessible to citymakers, it was very involved in local and national politics - visited by federal energy and climate change ministers and “Through its visibility and praised success, Repowering London has gained access to relevant decision-making processes both at local and national levels. Besides its operational relationship with various councils, Repowering London members have regularly been consulted on national debates about community energy, which additionally promoted urban community energy in the political sphere …” (PATHWAYS_03:16). Repowering has also historically been involved in the Dept. of Energy and Climate Change’s Community Energy Contact Group, which aimed to identify barriers and solutions for community energy (PATHWAYS_03:16). However, recall that Otero’s reported experience participating in policy writing was frustrating and that the final policy outcomes were not satisfactory.

Repowering also offers its professional services to facilitate other community energy projects (via legal, structural, financial, marketing base to co-produce similar initiatives with community groups), however: “In terms of collective learning and information sharing, there is an on-going debate within Repowering about what the initiative is happy to open-source, hence share openly and freely, and what is considered to be worth protecting and retaining as exclusive expertise (Pinho, Interview)” (PATHWAYS_03:19).

==='''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”?)'''===

Yes, see Q31a. All documented “replications” or cases of support (or perhaps better called “iterations of various community energy projects”) were in the same urban context (inner-city London neighbourhoods). However, the intervention has gotten a lot of good press and political recognition (PATHWAYS_03:16), and so it has likely inspired other projects.
In addition to their own projects, “Repowering has been acting as ‘mentor’ for a number community groups across London eager to replicate Brixton energy’s model in their local areas (Rosendale Energy, Streatham Power, Vauxhall Energy, Hackney Energy and En10ergy)” (PATHWAYS_03:18).

== 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?

There is no strong evidence for durable structural learning. As mentioned, project proponents participated in creating community energy policy, which was "toothless" according to Otero, but may have generally contributed to a national discussion about sustainability and justice. Additionally, Repowering proponents created an intermediary policy body called Community Energy England.

Otherwise, the experiences from Repowering are leading into new initiatives like the Energy Garden (https://www.energygarden.org.uk/), which aims to integrate with more actors and in inter-city partnerships. (Otero interview)

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

The qualities and capabilities of the core Repowering team were particular enabling factors, since they were highly knowledgeable about renewable energy, passionate, and motivated (PATHWAYS_03:8). These personal assets, along with a constructive team dynamic, enabled the intervention to successfully emerge. As explained by Otero: "Entrepreneurs are a very specific breed of people, who deal with loss and failure regularly and use it as fuel for success. They will tell you, that until you have lost, you will never succeed. And the successes you will have prior to losing are not worth the success. The only way to change a sector is to be willing to fail, to pivot, and to change throughout."

==='''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?'''===

Using accumulated experience, partnerships and community enthusiasm to achieve replication and upscaling aspirations amidst national policy instability.

Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!

== 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]]

Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam

2021-03-05T10:43:40Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact Franck van Steenbergen for more information.

{{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 is called the “Veerkracht Carnisse” or “Resilience Lab” and refers to an urban regeneration experiment within a deprived urban neighborhood. Specifically, iIt takes place in the neighborhood of Carnisse, in the south of Rotterdam (Netherlands).<ref>Resilience Lab website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://www.veerkrachtcarnisse.nl/.</ref>

The intervention consists of the creation and implementation of an Urban Living Lab, which focuses on different projects (education, greening, local democracy) to engage residents, professionals, and policymakers in regenerating this city district. It aims to collectively address the social problems the neighborhood is facing and reinvent the way in which neighborhoods could be redeveloped and regenerated.

==='''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.]'''===

This intervention is primarily implemented in the sector of urban regeneration.

==='''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]'''===

The intervention seeks to address both sustainability and social justice issues. On the one hand, the intervention “focused on empowering the local community” (i.e. in a “most disadvantaged neighborhood” of Rotterdam) (GUST_05: 1049). On the other hand, it aimed to “foster(ing) urban sustainability and resilience”.

Transition challenges were primarily tied to social justice, that is to say focused on “social cohesion, equity, community engagement/empowerment, and democratic legitimacy” (GUST_06: 202). Classical ecological issues were not really addressed by participants; sustainability was rather framed as “something that is durable, as a desire for consistency over a long period of time” (i.e. it refers to social sustainability and to social networks) (GUST_06: 202). The intervention is driven by the idea of reinventing the ways in which urban regeneration projects are developed and implemented and to make them more inclusive and responsive to the populations’ needs and wishes (interview with F.).

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

The Resilience Lab started with a period of concept development and scoping in 2009. It officially started in September 2011 and concluded in September 2015 (4 years) (GUST_05: 1049).

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

The intervention is characterized by a hybrid governance mode that includes the partners of the Resilience Lab (civil society organization, research institute), the municipality, and the local citizens.

==='''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 a relevant example of governance intervention that addresses the second order of learning, i.e. aiming to structurally change the governance arrangements in urban regeneration projects (interview with F.).

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

*GUST_05_Frantzeskaki_Lab Rotterdam
*add to GUST_(InContext) Wittmayer and al. Transition Management in Urban Neighborhood
*Interview with F., researcher, (16.06.20)

== 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).'''

The intervention has been developed and primarily funded by the Dutch Ministry within the framework of a national program aiming to regenerate deprived neighborhoods in the south of Rotterdam. The project was developed by a consortium of four partners (see Q. 10). One of them, the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT) related the intervention to the EU-funded project InContext (2010-13) (not included in UrbanA WP4 database). Incontext investigates the conditions for creating sustainability transitions at the local and individual levels. Carnisse neighborhood was the 1st pilot project of InContext.<ref>InContext website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/
.</ref>

In addition, the GUST project (2014-17 - Governance for Urban Sustainability Transitions)<ref>GUST website. Last view on 26/06/20: http://www.urbanlivinglabs.net/.</ref> enabled this same partner to conduct an impact assessment and an evaluation of all the activities done in the Resilience Lab. As as a part of the Joint Programming Instrument Urban Europe, GUST aimed to examine, inform, and advance the governance of sustainability transitions through Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs serve as a means for testing innovations (in buildings, transport and energy systems) and for providing economic stability and social cohesion while achieving urban sustainability.

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Experimentation labs]] approach. The overall project - GUST - is explicitly mentioned in the database: “The GUST project offers a number of illustrative examples where urban living labs of collaboration and innovation have been formed”. However, the intervention itself is not mentioned.

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

Five project deliverables have been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4 including GUST_05_Frantzeskaki_Lab Rotterdam (available in the Zotero library) that refers to the intervention.

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

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

Carnisse neighborhood is known for being among one of the forty “disadvantaged neighborhoods” in the Netherlands (according to the Ministry of Housing 2007) (GUST_05: 1048). The neighborhood is poorly scored in terms of safety, social cohesion, and housing (according to different municipal indexes). The partners involved in the intervention (see Q.10) “identified and encountered (in the neighborhood) persistent problems in different societal systems (e.g. education, welfare, healthcare and food)” (GUST_05: 1049).

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

The achievement of social justice is implicitly a major motivation behind the intervention. Even though the terms of “social justice” is not mentioned, the “Resilience Lab” explicitly focused on activity related to “poverty reduction, the upbringing of children, and democratic reform for local development programs” (GUST_05: 1049). In addition, the intervention aims to develop non-tokenistic participatory processes that are related to social justice (interview with F.).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 8. [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities | Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities ]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 Resilience Lab was initiated by a consortium of four project partners including the Rotterdam Vakmanstad, Creatief Beheer, Bureau Frontlijn, and the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT). The first three are local civil society organizations/associations involved in community building projects in other neighborhoods of Rotterdam. The fourth is a “research institute where several action researchers were active in Carnisse” (GUST_05: 1049). This consortium developed the Resilience Lab as a whole and each partner was responsible for one “interactive field” within it, including “improving residents’ home situation”, “education at school” and “greening the public space" (interview with F.).

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

The direct benefits of the intervention are the residents of the district. Indeed the “target groups of the Resilience Lab included primarily children (aged 4–12 years), their families, schools (board, teachers, and parents), and residents or volunteers actively involved in community life”. Also included were the networks in Carnisse and Charlois consisting of professionals, civil servants, social workers, and entrepreneurs” (GUST_05: 1050).

Scaling up, the intervention aims to benefit the municipality of Rotterdam because it consists of experimenting with a new form of transition management in an urban regeneration context that can be later transferred to other neighborhoods (upscaling).

==='''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
| X
| (initiator/project leaders) DRIFT
researchers and associated

|-
| Religious organizations
|
|
|-
| Civil society organizations
| X
| (indicators/project leaders) Bureau Frontlijn, Creatief Beheer, Rotterdam Vakmanstad
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
| X
| a foundation responsible for the ‘re-opened’ community-center.
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| The municipality of Rotterdam
different sub-department of the Municipality of Rotterdam

|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
| X
| (co-funders) the Dutch government
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| Welfare organizations
Housing associations

|}

==='''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 intervention was made possible by the freedom given by the municipality to the consortium to implement the project. In a context of turbulences in local institutional settings (regarding municipal structures and competences), the 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.

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

The citizens (i.e. actors including residents as well as other people working or connected to the district) engaged with the intervention by developing a vision or “narrative of place” about transition pathways for the future of the district; by establishing an agenda for transformative and experimental actions (GUST_5: 1053); or by participating directly in the activities of the Resilience Lab.

These two levels of citizens’ engagement i.e. deliberating about the vision of the neighborhood and joining the activities of the Resilience Lab were complementary.

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

The consortium partners of the Resilience Lab were the drivers of the project. They first framed the intervention and proposed tools for engaging citizens (i.e. community areas, activities). The citizens engaged in the Resilience Lab by developing the vision of the neighborhood as well as participating in activities. In other words, the four partners were the drivers and facilitators of the projects, while the citizens participated in shaping the intervention and orienting its outcomes. Over time, citizens' roles and responsibilities grew bigger since the project developed according to their wishes and needs. For instance, citizens were the drivers of the creation of the community gardens and the community center (GUST_05: 1054).

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

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

The methodology and activities for the transition management approach were focused on abstract discussion and meta-level questions about the vision of the neighborhood. Thus it targeted people who were more accustomed to such deliberative settings. In addition, the methodology for the visioning aspect of the Resilience Lab works with selective participation and targets 20 to 30 front runners of the neighborhood (interview with F.). In that sense, it was rather exclusive to people who were not familiar with such settings, including people facing language barriers, newcomers, and young people (below 20 years old (GUST_06: 193). Some did try to participate the deliberative arena but attended only in a few workshops and acted mostly as observers.

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

To balance this exclusivity, the consortium partner tried to engage people in practical activities which proved to be more inclusive than discussing the neighborhood. Indeed people joining the activities in the community center or garden were more diverse in terms of ethnicity, languages, and age difference. This "hands on" mentality proved to be very rewarding for the people who live and work in Carnisse (interview with F.)

== 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 Carnisse neighborhood had been identified as an area that needed to be regenerated (due to persistent social problems). Whereas typical regeneration strategies include demolishing aged public housing and a top-down re-development approach, the municipality agreed on experimenting new forms of urban regeneration in the neighborhood. The Resilience Lab - suggested by the consortium partners (see Q.10) - was a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” (GUST_05: 1050).

In addition, overall design of the project (i.e. participatory, involving the local community) matches with the context of a new national neighborhood approach in which “citizens should be more active in addressing and solving problems in their living environment” (GUST_05: 1048). Thus, it was favorably appreciated by the local government to give lots of freedom to the leading partners for implementing the Resilience Lab.

==='''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]])'''===

The current neighborhood approach of the ministry of Internal Affairs in the Netherlands reconceptualizes the role of inhabitants and citizens to be responsible in a far greater extent for addressing issues related to their living environment: “a revised role for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations in the 40-Neighbourhood-Programme. They describe this change as follows: “from active financial commitment linked with targets to a more facilitative role, acting on request in relation to what others do” (Ministerie BZK 2014: 2)” (GUST_06: 1880).

==='''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 Resilience Lab was developed in a context of changing institutional settings including the municipal centralization of sub-municipal departments (which were dismantled) and at the same time the decentralization of national policies of social welfare to local municipalities (interview with F.). It means that the municipality of Rotterdam was in charge of extra tasks related to the welfare and well-being of Rotterdam citizens.

==='''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.)'''===

The project material points out that a new trend of the political culture, emphasizing the role of citizens in addressing local issues, influenced the intervention. Indeed, the Resilience Lab took place in the context of withdrawal of the state welfare structures and financial support by redirecting the responsibility to the local inhabitants and citizens. In that sense, the Resilience Lab is a solution given the context of a required “participatory society” (GUST_06: 188).

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

The main transition management in Carnisse’s neighborhood was funded by the Dutch Ministry under a national program for urban regeneration in Rotterdam-South (GUST_06: 190)n. The development of the transition methodology by DRIFT (one partner) was funded by the EU-project InContext, and the assessment and evaluation of the overall intervention that DRIFT conducted was funded by the EU-project GUST (see Q. 8.a).

==='''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 institutional settings were very turbulent over the course of the intervention and the governmental policies and constitutional settings detailed above(see Q.18 -Q.19) were progressively set-up at that time.

'''''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'''

Turbulences and changes in the institutional settings (i.e. regarding the competences of the municipality and welfare structures) were an obstacle to implementing the intervention (GUST_05: 1050). While the sub-municipality to which Carnisse belonged was dismantled and budget cuts were made to social support, the project partners navigated without grasping these new settings. The consortium did not manage to establish a durable relationship with other actors, from the municipality to housing associations and welfare organizations, because the contact people changed every year (interview with F.)

The constantly changing institutional settings created a lot of ambiguity and insecurity about future processes. It constrained people in engaging in a participatory process while not being sure on how everything would be arranged in the following years (interview with F.).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The intervention faced obstacles prior to its implementation. Before it started, the project faced distrust from some residents towards these kinds of projects which have the “tendency to portray the neighborhood as a disadvantage, an image which frustrated many locals and in which they did not recognize themselves” (GUST_05: 1050).

In addition, another challenge was the relative skepticism from both the residents and the municipality about the “relative openness of both the process and the outcomes” of the living lab. They were doubting the urban living lab could effectively address the problems the neighborhood was facing.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

There is high residential mobility and turnover in Carnisse, as it is considered as an “arrival” neighborhood. Many newcomers, especially young and less educated workers, move in as they arrive in the city and move out as soon as they can afford to live in a better district (InContext). As a consequence, the short-term residents are not necessarily aware about the local projects.

*'''d. Finances'''

It was challenging to start the intervention because it took place in a context of “budget cuts” from the municipality and general public subsidies for social intervention (i.e. the context of the erosion of old welfare structure) (GUST_05: 1050).

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

The participatory and deliberative aspect of the resilience Lab were not very inclusive (see Q. 16).

== 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?
|-
| Turbulences in institutional settings
| To overcome these turbulences, the consortium partners tried to work qui autonomously from these formal institutions. This found to be quite fruitful for the success of the Resilience Lab, as they could experiment with activities on the ground and really engage with the people of Carnisse free from institutional constraints. However, this autonomy hammered the more durable impact of the Resilience Lab in the municipal agenda (see Q. 36).
|-
| Skepticism of the residents and the municipality
| The project leaders. To address the skepticism of the residents and the municipality about the process and the outcomes of the project (is it worth it or not?), the Resilience Lab had to “prove [...] the benefits from being involved in it”, “this required a deep study of the dynamics of the neighborhood, building networks based on reciprocity and gaining trust over time by showing results that benefited the local community” (GUST_05: 1050).
|-
| Budget cuts in social welfare
| The consortium partner DRIFT used other fundings including two Eu-projects Incontext and Gust.
|-
| Lack of inclusivity
| The “practical” and “hands on” activities of the Resilience Lab allowed more diverse people to engage in the project and made it more inclusive (see Q. 16).
|-
|}

== 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.'''===

The outcomes of the intervention are:
*New social relations established within the neighborhood between citizens and some policy makers, and also between residents themselves. The participatory activities and tools used in the framework of the Resilience Lab increased interaction between different social groups (GUST_05: 1059). It enhanced trust and contributed to community building (although one of the problems in the district was the lack of community).
*Opening of the neighborhood: people living outside of the neighborhood took part in the Resilience Lab, thus increasing its openness and enhancing networks and relationships outside of the administrative boundaries of Carnisse (GUST_05: 1052).
*Citizens empowerment: the narrative “blossoming Carnisse” (GUST_05: 1053) developed in the deliberative workshops and empowered citizens because it gave them the opportunity to express their aspirations (what to they want for their neighborhood) and express their legitimate criticisms to the current dynamic of the place (e.g. the severe budget cuts that let to the closure of public facilities, such as two community centers and an educational garden). Over time, the citizens became almost fully responsible for the community center and the community garden.
*The identification of the residents/citizens with their neighborhood (i.e. the creation of a symbolic “sense of place”) although prior to the Resilience Lab, many did not feel connected to the neighborhood in terms of “shared meaning and experience” (GUST_05: 1053).
*the success of the “collaborative governance” (i.e. between policy makers and citizens). This demonstrates that reciprocity and institutional connection are key for escaping stigmatization of the place and its people (GUST_05: 1053).

== 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.'''

The four consortium partners “had been involved and worked in their respective domains (i.e. social work, education) in other neighborhoods of Rotterdam south” (add to GUST: 190). Thus, the partners have brought their own experience and set of approaches and activities to the framework of the Resilience Lab.

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

Not reportedly. However, one of the consortium partners, DRIFT, had previously experienced some transition management strategies in the sectors of housing and mobility in other urban contexts, which have been translated to the neighborhood scale for Carnisse (interview with F.).

=== 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'''

The Resilience Lab is is experimental and not explicitly built upon another intervention.
However, the methodology developed for transition management was influenced by previous work carried out by the consortium partners. The project started with a vision translated into a set of principles to be developed in practice (interview with F.). This methodology was the overarching umbrella under which the activities were created. The partners have already experimented some of these activities in other neighborhoods of Rotterdam-South (GUST_05: 1049) but adapted them to the local context e.g. in the sector of education or greening the public space.

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

The partner DRIFT had already experienced transition management strategies in the energy or mobility sector. The methodology they had previously developed was translated and adapted to urban regeneration at the scale of a neighborhood (Interview with F.).

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

Since the Resilience Lab was incorporated into other EU-projects on transition management, especially Incontext, some learning may have been disseminated, especially based in the case of the other pilot projects, such as the city of Wolfhagen, Germany, and the village of Finkenstein in Austria.<ref>InContext website. Last view on 06/05/20): : https://www.incontext-fp7.eu/pilots.html.</ref>

=== 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 started from an abstract vision, a methodology, and a set of activities already experienced in other contexts. The practical dimension of the intervention was not set in stone and developed over the course of the project to make it context specific (i.e. depending on the need, wishes of the residents as well as facing local constraints). To sum up, it is an intervention that learnt from itself in the process of implementing it.

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

Overcoming obstacles contributed to the learning process, especially in regards the exclusive dimension of the project. The consortium partner found out that engaging citizens in a deliberation process can be quite exclusive whereas “hands on” and practical activities (i.e. in the community center or the community gardens) are far more inclusive. This learning allowed them to combine these two aspects of the participation (Interview with F.)

==='''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.'''===

*Guidance tool for self-organization developed by DRIFT
*In the framework of InContext: “Community Arena” for transition management include the processes of envisioning, backcasting, experimenting, self-reflection, and learning

== 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]'''

The project aims to be transferable. The idea was to identify, “new ways of neighborhood development” (GUST_05: 1055) and reinvent integrative methods for neighborhood redevelopment that could be adapted to different contexts. The overarching umbrella and set of principles for transition management would remain while the different activities within the Resilience Lab would be context specific (interview with F.).

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

The principles and methodology for neighborhood transition management (i.e. the Resilience Lab as a whole) can be transferred to any other context. However the activities within it should not be pre-determined and have to be adapted to the local context. It means that vision and basic principles of the Resilience Lab can be transferred but the actual implementation would differ in every neighborhood. (interview with F.).

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

Researchers and project managers.

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

The limit to transferability would not take the Resilience Lab as an integrative project, rather to replicate the different activities within it e.g. related to education, green space etc.. Lacking an overarching and integrated vision of neighborhood transition management would limit the success of such intervention (Interview with F.).

==='''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 project has been disseminated.

==='''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”?)'''===

The Resilience Lab as a whole has not been replicated in other contexts. However, the different activities developed by the consortium partners (including educational tools for schools or arrangement of the public space) have been transferred and implemented in other districts in Rotterdam and in cities in the Netherlands. The residents also replicated some activities such as the community garden after the first one has been closed by the municipality (interview with F.).

Based on the experience of Carnisse, the notion of "self-sustained community center" is also being replicated by the municipality in some other neighborhoods in Rotterdam under the name "Houses for the neighborhood” (interview with F.) . In 2013-14, a local policy established that every neighborhood should have a community center in which the desires and needs of citizens are central and where the community takes an active role in sustaining the center. These “Houses for the neighborhood” are a sort of replication of the community center in Carnisse, but are mainly led by municipality structures together with welfare organizations. Some are developed elsewhere in the Netherlands.

== 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?

Yes, the project was mainly aimed at restructuring the governance arrangements. Whereas the municipality and other dominant stakeholders like the housing associations or welfare organizations were very dominant in the previous years, the Resilience Lab was explicitly aimed at breaking the dominant structure and actors who governed neighborhood development. The Resilience Lab tried to work instead in more in a co-creative manner and meaningfully involve residents and all kind resident groups in impacting- their neighborhood. Changing the governance arrangements was a really strong ambition of the intervention (interview with F.).

However, this ambition faced two obstacles and turned out to be quite limited. First, in the context of institutional turbulences, the consortium partners decided to develop the project quite autonomously from the municipality (see Q. 24). As a consequence, they could not really connect with the municipality and share the learning from that intervention. Whereas some civil servants learnt from the intervention, they did it at a personal level and not at the structural level of the institution. Second, the fragmented replication of Resilience Lab (see Q.33) rather than its integrated vision rather hampered impact in structurally changing the governance settings (interview with F.).

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

The biggest takeaway from such a Resilience Lab or neighborhood redevelopment is to aim to the autonomy and sovereignty of the residents and the people involved. Such interventions have to be context specific, have a sense of freedom in developing your activities in practices to support learning by doing (interview with F.).

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg

2021-03-05T10:43:04Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact Philipp Späth for more information.
{{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)”]'''===

The intervention addresses the eco-district of Vauban in the city of Freiburg, Germany, with a particular focus on its co-housing projects. It has been developed at the scale of a neighborhood or city district within a regional hub (Freibrug has 220.000 inhabitants).

The intervention aimed to co-create and design a sustainable neighborhood, which would provide inclusive and affordable housing that was adapted to the needs and the will of the local population.

==='''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.]'''===

This intervention is primarily implemented in the sectors of housing and urban development (i.e. building/establishing a new district).

==='''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]'''===

The intervention (co-housing in Vauban and Genova’s case) aimed to establish a sustainable, eco-district while implementing participatory planning and cooperative ownership (TRANSIT_01: 5). Social objectives of inclusiveness and affordable housing, as well as ecological goals such as walkable pathways, car-free zones, green areas, and low-energy buildings are embedded in the project (TRANSIT_01: 6).

“social and ecological goals and standards have been set from the beginning as part of the official guidelines by the City of Freiburg: compulsory low energy standard for new buildings, connection to the tram network until 2006, rain infiltration on the very territory, socially mixed inhabitant structure and a priority of giving away land to private builder-owners and collective building projects (Life-Projekt)" (TRANSIT_16).

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

The creation of this new district started after the withdrawal of the French military troops from the Vauban military facilities in 1992. In 1994, the city became the owner of the land and launched the project. At the same time, citizens interested in engaging in the project created organizations such as the Forum Vauban and the Independent Housing Project - SUSI. Housing cooperatives began to form in 1997, namely the Genova housing cooperative. The first tenants moved into Genova I in 1999 and in Genova II in 2001 (Table 5.1. Timeline and development of Vauban_TRANSIT_01: 8). Other projects have since developed. In 2009, the construction phases were completed.

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

The intervention is characterized by a hybrid-governance mode.

==='''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 intervention provides an interesting example of negotiated governance between a grassroots initiatives and the municipality, thereby reaching across institutional boundaries.

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

*TRANSIT_01_cohousing: the eco-district of Vauban and the co-housing project GENOVA (02)
*TRANSIT_02_Social Innovation Research project: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/
*Interview with A., a project proponent (10.07.20)

== 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).'''

Yes, the intervention has been studied in the context of the EU-funded project TRANSIT (2014-2017).<ref>TRANSIT website. Last view on 29/06/20: http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/ .</ref> The project aims to develop a new theory on Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) which refers to “a process of changes in social relations, involving the challenging, altering and/or replacing of dominant institutions and structures”. The project aims to draft a manifesto for TSI that sheds light on initiatives and emerging movements for TSI in hopes of inspiring policy makers, social entrepreneurs, academics, and other stakeholders.

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Co-living, co-housing & intentional communities]] approach. The TRANSIT project is explicitly mentioned in the database. In addition, the intervention addresses the [[Governance and participation processes]] approach and the [[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons]] approach.

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

Yes, the project has been coded in the framework of WP4 but not the intervention itself.

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

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

Inequality and exclusion has been problematized both by the (prospective) residents of the district (in the framework of citizens organizations including Forum Vauban, SUSI, other citizen groups or cooperatives...) and by the municipality of Freiburg in view of creating an inclusive and affordable eco-district.

Specifically, to make GENOVA co-housing more inclusive, the cooperative is regulating the pricing structure, reducing house rents for targeted groups i.e. “elderly people and long-term members, as well as persons with the right to social housing, so called Wohnberechtigungsschein” (TRANSIT_01: 36).

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

The achievement of justice has explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention by focusing on affordable housing and citizens' self-planning and management: “(Vauban) is an ecological, sustainable district which has consciously set itself social objectives such as inclusiveness and affordable housing, as well as short distances” (TRANSIT_01: 6) ; “affordable housing, planned and managed by its residents” (TRANSIT_01: 16) ; “the goal of which was to create ecological living space based on the principles of social justice and self-organization” (TRANSIT_01: 24).

In addition, “The City of Freiburg as the owner of the territory of Vauban is responsible for its planning and opening up for development. In the course of this, social and ecological goals and standards have been set from the beginning as part of the official guidelines by the City of Freiburg: compulsory low energy standard for new buildings, connection to the tram network until 2006, rain infiltration on the very territory, socially mixed inhabitant structure and a priority of giving away land to private builder-owners and collective building projects (Life-Projekt)" (TRANSIT_01: 16).

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 intervention was co-initiated by citizens, primarily the citizen-led initiative Forum Vauban and the Independent Housing Projects -SUSI, and the municipality of Freiburg, in order to build a new district:

“After the departure of the military (1992), the Vauban district was designed and rebuilt anew during a unique citizen-involvement process – for which it has been awarded several times – by the City of Freiburg together with the citizen-lead association ‘Forum Vauban’ as a bottom-up actor with a mandate in the Vauban city planning council (TRANSIT_01: 5).

“When the City of Freiburg decided to build the new district in 1993, the citizen-led initiative of Forum Vauban had already been active in setting up their plans and visions about how to build the district in a “green”, sustainable and participatory way” (Transit_01: 24).

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

The envisioned benefiters of the intervention are the (prospective) residents of Vauban, especially the owners of housing cooperatives (interview with A.), and more broadly, the residents of Freiburg who could potentially move into affordable and ecological housing. The municipality of Freiburg also benefits from the district's widespread reputation, using it as a “green flag” in urban marketing strategies to enhance the attractiveness of the city (TRANSIT_01: 27).

==='''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
| X
|
*Forum Vauban (citizen-led organization)
*Co-housing cooperatives (e.g. SUSI ; Genova e.g. ; Vaubanaise e.g….).
*Baugruppen (e.g. Wohnen&Arbeiten ; Woge e.V. etc…) (Table 5.2: co-housing and other important projects in Vauban_TRANSIT_01: 13)
*Other initiatives, e.g.: Autofreies Wohnen e.V. (organizes car-free mobility in Vauban); Quartierladen e.G. (a cooperative supermarket for local organic food supply); Kinderabenteurh of Freiburg e.V. (an associative kindergarten); Villaban with Restaurant Kantine (a restaurant organizing joint cooking events)
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
|
*The municipality of Freiburg
*The local parliament
*The “Vauban city planning council (GRAG)” is a consultative committee within the city council (including members of the administration, of the local parliament and of Forum Vauban), which was created to plan the new district of Vauban alongside citizen groups (TRANSIT_01: 33).
|-
| 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 converging vision of the citizens and the municipality for building a new district was crucial. Whereas the municipality intended to plan a new district to meet the extremely high demand for living space in Freiburg, Forum Vauban had envisaged an ecological, socially just, and self-organized city quarter with lots of green space and affordable housing (TRANSIT_01: 16). Specifically, citizens represented by Forum Vauban benefited from direct access to discussion with parliamentarians and municipal actors in the “Vauban City Policy Council” GRAG (see Q.15). The support from local parliamentarians was therefore critical in enabling the citizens' plans and visions to be implemented (interview with A.).

In addition, the city dedicated additional public money to set-up the project in a participatory way and officially mandated Forum Vauban to mediate the process and provide assistance (e.g. with the distribution of building lots) (TRANSIT_01: 23).

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

Citizens, especially Forum Vauban, were the drivers of the co-housing projects. Citizens engaged in visioning and planning the distinct as well as in the physical building it (e.g. with the Baugruppen) (TRANSIT_01: 16).

When the project of rebuilding a new district arose (1992-1994), self-organized citizens were invited to share their vision of the district: “The Forum Vauban (working as an open forum) invited, organized, and coordinated professional expertise around planning, ecological housing, funding and forms of ownership brought in by interested citizens” ; “This could be realized because the city of Freiburg agreed and provided a frame and organizational innovations to cooperate with the citizen-lead Forum Vauban. From this platform emerged various building groups, some of which came up with the idea of cooperative building" (TRANSIT_01: 17).

In addition, students of architecture - on a voluntary basis - initiated and facilitated the process of developing utilization plans. (TRANSIT_01: 17).

Finally, “the citizen-initiative was the driving force in establishing participatory planning and “learning while planning” methods” (TRANSIT_01: 18).

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

Both civil-society and governmental actors participated in creating the eco-district of Vauban. “On the one hand, it was built in a bottom-up process through self-organized housing initiatives of cooperatives and privately organized building groups (Baugruppen). On the other hand, the overall planning of the infrastructure, the selling of land property, and the ecological building laws were set-up and coordinated by the government of the City of Freiburg including participatory planning processes with the future residents” (TRANSIT_01: 42). Citizens groups provided visions for the district and participated in the planning and building process, while the administration of the City of Freiburg, as the owner of the land, had the responsibility to decide on planning and selling land slots (TRANSIT_01: 33).

In addition, a mix-consultative council called “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” was established, which included seven parliamentarians, twenty members of the municipality administration and one member of Forum Vauban. This council was responsible for “creating the necessary infrastructure, taking over a coordinating role, doing the marketing of the territories” (TRANSIT_01: 33). The GRAG was separated from the usual municipal hierarchies and was instead assigned to the head of the construction department, which opened up possibilities for the representatives of the citizenry to directly contribute to the work of this group (TRANSIT_01: 18). The council was therefore a forum for discussion between different actors and facilitated the bridging of institutional logics.

The municipality also designed and implemented the principle of “Planning that Learns," meaning that pilot initiatives would be experimented before being widely enforced. A prime example of this principle is the mobility concept of Vauban, which was first operated in one third of the district before being implemented in the whole neighborhood (interview with A.).

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

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

Direct exclusion of social groups is not reported. However, indirect exclusions have been controversial. First, the car-free mobility concept of the district was found exclusive and dissuasive for car-owners. Second, housing was primarily accessible to home owners rather than to tenants. Indeed, about 76% of the district is dedicated to home owners (including cooperatives). However, becoming an owner is not accessible to everyone because it entails very high entry costs. Additionally, building one's own house takes a lot of time (at least 5 years), which not everybody can afford (interview with A.).

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

There are not reported indications about the triggers of these indirect exclusions. Concerning the car-free mobility concept, a solution was found by creating dedicated parking lots and establishing a system that meets the needs of both car-owners and of those who do not have a car. In regards to the housing system, the primacy given to home owners is a political decision that has not been amended (interview with A.).

== 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 circumstances which have reportedly triggered the interventions are :

*The housing crisis in Freiburg (and co-housing alternative as a response to it).
“Because of its attractiveness (geographical, cultural, economic hub, and university), Freiburg is one of the most expensive cities in Germany in view of the housing price. As a result of the high pressure on the housing market, creative forms of alternative living developed like trailer home communities developed as well as ongoing urban planning activities of the municipality, trying to explore and build new areas and quarters” (TRASIT_01: 7).

*The ecologically-minded citizens and local policy makers.
This is related to the historical background of the city, including its tradition of critical thinkers at the University (e.g. H. Heidegger, H. Arendt), the social movement against the nuclear power plant of Wyhl, and leftwing policy makers (TRANSIT_01: 7).

*The opportunity to build a new district from scratch after the departure of the French troops from Vauban in 1992.
“The well-educated, collegiate and ecological milieu of Freiburg was in need of housing. The expected liberation of the French Vauban barracks at a central location in Freiburg generated desires and creative ideas. The time span until the sale to the Federal Republic was settled could be used for establishing a professional forum, the Forum Vauban, from within the citizenry from 1994 on. This forum started to develop serious urban planning concepts.”(TRANSIT_01: 8).

*The capacities and resources of Forum Vauban to engage in the project.
Forum Vauban included a core group of four people working almost full time on the project (who were being professionalized), along with several working groups. Those working groups were responsible for developing visions and for implementing projects in the sectors of energy, mobility, social cohesion, and social infrastructures (interview with A.).

==='''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]])'''===

Regarding the participatory process, the municipality conceptualized a legal framework - namely the “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” and the principle of “Planning that Learns” - which allowed citizens to participate in urban development.

More broadly, cooperative housing in Germany is regulated by the CooperativesAct, first adopted in 1889 and reformed in 2006. It determines the cooperatives’ organizational rules and their business conduct (TRANSIT_01: 6). The Rent Regulation Act outlines the responsibilities of all landlords of rental dwellings, including housing cooperatives, and specifications about rent increases (ICA) (Enkeleda 2011, TRANSIT_01: 6). Cooperatives are framed by regulatory policies from the national level and enforced locally.

==='''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?'''===

In Germany, the municipality is responsible for urban planning within the lines of the national regulations (i.e. the urban planning laws and codes). The municipality together with the federal state can thus allow citizens to participate in urban planning; in this case, the Baden-Württemberg Development Agency gave Forum Vauban extended governance and financial responsibilities to mediate the participation process. This means that citizen participation in urban planning depends on specific and local regulatory policies.

==='''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.)'''===

Freiburg has a culture of ecologically and politically engaged citizens, which has manifested in various protests (i.e. against Wyhl nuclear power plant) and broad participation in national and local political issues. Freiburg was the first city in Germany to vote for a green political majority. Self-organized groups have been recognized since squatters successfully built vivid communities (80s).

Concerning the development of Vauban, there were enough people trusting the eco-left millieu to positively influence the district development, thereby invested money in Baugruppen and proving that their trust was justified.

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

The intervention was financially supported by two means:

*Funds raised and gathered by the citizens.
“It consisted first of all in voluntary work for planning the private houses and furthermore working on concepts for the whole district. Furthermore, Forum Vauban could fundraise several projects because of its special model character, sometimes in cooperation with the city or other official institutions” (TRANSIT_01: .40). Between 1996 and 2002, about EUR 200, 000 were received from the German Federal Foundation for the Environment, and from 1997-1999 about EUR 700, 000 from the EU Life Environmental Program. Memberships, donations, and other fees account for the overall budget of Forum Vauban, which was managing a budget of 2 million Euro from 1995-2001 (TRANSIT_01: 40).
In addition, “on the level of private housing subsidies, the house builders and cooperatives could make use of the so-called Eigenheimzulage, a state subsidy for builder-owners” (TRANSIT_01: 40).

*Financial support from the city development budget.
Financial support was provided to for the city administration by the Federal State of Germany or the regular process of building a new district. As an urban development project, the Vauban has a specific status and budget (EUR 85,000,000) according to German building law. The city invested in total 95 million Euros in the district and provided an additional EUR 200, 000 for the participation process (TRANSIT_01: 41).

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

Citizen participation was consolidated throughout the project as Forum Vauban earned the trust of institutional actors (interview with A.). The milestones of this progressive recognition are:
*the invitation for Forum Vauban to join the “Vauban City Planning Council (GRAG)” as well as the financial support of 30, 000 marks per year given by the municipality (spring 1995)
*the financial support of the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt as well as *the participation of Forum Vauban to the United Nations Organization Habitat Conference in Istanbul (summer 1996)
*the implementation of the mobility concept according to the principle of “Planning that Learns” (summer 1996).
*the grant from the Baden-Württemberg Development Agency (Landesentwicklunggesellschaft LEG) to Forum Vauban for participating in the development of the district (1998).

'''''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'''

Disputes over the destruction of old military barracks occurred between activists/former squatters and the opposing municipality. For instance, a joint initiative of SUSI- and GENOVA-stakeholders - called Drei5Viertel i.G aimed to renovate three additional barrack buildings but failed because of the regulatory framework. The stakeholders failed to meet the (tight) municipal deadline for proposing a financing concept (TRANSIT_01: 14) and the barracks were demolished.

In addition, the timeframe of the project, due to administrative procedures (about 5 years at least to build the first houses), may have discouraged citizens to engage in the project. Besides, the uncertainty about its outcomes, i.e. whether the project would be accepted by the municipality and a grant given, was also an obstacle to implementing the intervention (interview with A.)

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The collaboration between citizens and the municipality was not always easy because each group had to adapt to the institutional logic of the others. For instance, when the GRAG invited a representative of Forum Vauban to take over a permanent seat in a consulting role, “Forum Vauban welcomed this decision of the city as a step towards them. Nevertheless they were not always satisfied, because the citizens were expected to adapt to the logic of urban planning which already existed in the city bureaucracy” (TRANSIT_01: 25).

From the perspective of many inhabitants of Vauban, an unjust treatment by the City persists throughout the history of the quarter. For instance, the city benefits from tourism in Vauban and from the image of Freiburg being a “Green City," due in large part to Forum Vauban and its civic activities, without the latter being recognized and appreciated sufficiently (TRANSIT_01: 27).

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

The entry cost to become a housing owner is very high and prevents many people from engaging in such projects (interview with A.). The financial obstacle is a driver of exclusion for working-class people.

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

*Contrasting visions of the district development between project proponents.
“While some followed a radical path of squatting houses and initially moved their trailer homes illegally onto the free area left behind by the military. –, others wanted to maintain good contacts with the city council” (TRANSIT_01: 16). Specifically, squatters and trailer home owners had some confrontations with Forum Vauban. Whereas squatters already living in the military barracks were reluctant to plans proposed by Forum Vauban, the latter felt that squatters were jeopardizing the project by undermining citizens' actions toward municipal actors (interview with A.)

*Gradual disengagement of the residents.
“When the majority of the houses were built and residents moved in, as ‘normal’ life started, the engagement for the quarter started to diminish” (TRANSIT_01: 23).

*The liquidation of Forum Vauban
Forum Vauban became bankrupt in 2004 after a lawsuit from the European Commission. It was replaced by the new ‘Stadtteil Verein Vauban e.V.’ (city district association) based on resident members.

== 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?
|-
| Controversies over the destruction of old military barracks by the municipality
|by the activists, occupations of the barracks and protests.
by the municipality, continued the demolitions.
|-
| Liquidation of Forum Vauban
| by the residents/activists, establishment of “Stadtteilverein” district association (as follow-up organization of Forum Vauban).
|-
| Dissensus among project proponents
| by the civil society organizations, “The different groups involved in the design and development of Vauban managed to cooperate in a productive way to realize this district project due to a great balancing act between innovative visions and the reality of existing city planning laws. The diversity of the district map (including housing cooperatives, groups of private house builders and construction companies) mirrors the different interests and groups and their ‘areas’”(TRANSIT_01: 16).
|-
| Gradual disengagement of residents
| after the completion of building the district, residents spread out to a large variety of projects both inside the district (including “hosting space” for supporting refugees with rooms for German lessons), and outside of the district with the creation of various interest groups with relevance for the entire city and beyond (TRANSIT_01:24).
|
|}

== 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.'''===

Sustainability challenges addressed in Vauban district include:
*Car-reduced living (including specific external parking lots managed by a “car-free living association”).
*Energy-efficient housing and low-carbon buildings. “The municipality of Freiburg introduced a low energy housing standard for all buildings, namely a maximum of 65kWh/a of the primary energy consumption” (TRANSIT_01: 20).
*Lots of green areas and amenities

Apply to GENOVA cooperative : “One of the accomplishments of GENOVA in view of affordable living space is the fixing of rental prices for 10 apartments supported by GENOVA by means of the social building program for 10 years. However, after some efforts to choose the beneficiaries itself, GENOVA decided that applicants should have an official document proving their eligibility to receive low cost housing issued by city institutions. After 10 years, they can then receive support for paying their rent by a special social fund created by GENOVA” (TRANSIT_01: 28).

== 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.'''

The intervention is built upon the development of another district in Freiburg called Rieselfeld. Located on a former leach field, the creation of this new district in 1992 is a pioneer in terms of citizens' participation in urban development projects in Freiburg. Specifically, the “City Planning Council” (see Q.15) that includes parliamentarians, municipal actors and citizen organizations was first established for Rieselfeld. Civil society partners actively involved in the urban development project included, among others the Protestant social welfare organization Diakonie, as well as a car-free living organization that conceptualized a new mobility vision for the district (Interview with A.).

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

The cooperative movement in Germany has inspired the intervention. The movement is rooted in the 19th-century history and the leading figures of Raiffeisen and Schulze-Delitzsch. Cooperative models developed in different sectors (housing, farming, energy) and spread across Europe and especially in Germany during the late 19th and 20th centuries. These examples of housing cooperatives in Germany (especially in the the German Federal States of Schleswig-Holstein, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamburg and Lower Saxony) are traditionally large housing cooperatives more strongly integrated into the urban planning process, and have reportedly been inspirational for the instigators of the intervention (TRANSIT_01: 6).

However, the old housing cooperatives had a rather distinct vision of the social organization of housing (e.g. environmental standards or cooperative rules). Vauban proponents moved away from the old cooperative model to experiment with innovative approaches (e.g. carpooling) (interview with A.).

=== 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'''

The experience of Rieselfeld was inspirational for Vauban’s proponents, especially for Forum Vauban, which attempted to develop a more comprehensive approach to citizen participation. Forum Vauban lobbied to have a stronger influence on politicians as well as to directly engage in visioning, planning and especially building the district. Whereas welfare or mobility organizations partnered with the municipality for the development of Rieselfeld, local citizens represented by Forum Vauban were the driving forces of the urban development process.

In addition, the car-free living concept of Vauban is reportedly built upon the vision for Rieselfeld (interview with A.).

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

The intervention acquired knowledge from other housing cooperative experiences in Germany. Specifically, according to German regulation, every cooperative has to become a member of a cooperative confederation “in order to be advised, supervised and observed” (TRANSIT_01: 37). GENOVA and Quartiersladen are both members of “Prüfungsverband der kleinen und mittelständischen Genossenschaften e.V.“ (PkmG). This unit audits cooperatives, provides support in matters of economy, law and tax policy, and advises on questions of organization management. This audit was deemed very useful for the creation of GENOVA (interview with A.).

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

n/a

=== 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?'''===

On its website, Forum Vauban states: “Learning about participatory planning processes was a key topic in the Vauban process. The principle of “Planning that learns” and the extended citizen participation with Forum Vauban set new standards of communication, interaction and integration” (TRANSIT_01: 37

Through the participatory planning process, the intervention was adapted to manifest houses and infrastructure where some people could spend the rest of their lives. The aspect of community building in the early phase with the future neighbours is seen as centrally important: (TRANSIT_01: 38).

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

The conflicts that posed the municipality in opposition to the residents/activists (e.g. over the demolition of old barracks or over the modalities of the citizens participation) were overcome and enhanced transparency and mutual trust between both actors, allowing for further cooperation.

“The sense of responsibility of the citizens had been strengthened and the disenchantment with politics reduced. Despite occasional conflicts the City of Freiburg and the citizenry see the participatory and cooperative approach as a great gain of the quality and further development of the city quarter of Vauban” (TRANSIT_01: 25).

==='''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.'''===

*for activists (especially at the beginning of the intervention): face-to-face meetings, location where people met (e.g. the student broad office at the university), a print media for information and exchanges, namely the “Vauban actuel” district magazine
*for citizens and municipality cooperation, the “Vauban City Planning Council” and the implementation of the participatory principles like “planning that leans". They included workshops *for co-creating the design of streets and open green spaces as well as excursions mediated by Forum Vauban.
*About 10 events (including district festivals, international conferences “UrbanVisions” as a pre-event of the UN ‘urban 21”) were co-organized with the City of Freiburg, mainly addressing future home owners, architects, craftsmen, the building industry and financial institutes (TRANSIT_01: 37).

== 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]'''

"Vauban district and the co-housing projects are internationally known and the model “has inspired all over the world in view of sustainable planning especially with regard to citizen involvement” (TRANSIT_01: .6).

“Vauban’s widespread reputation as a model ecodistrict (e.g. through exhibition at World Expo Shanghai) attracts hordes of visitors from all over the world. A number of organizations offer guided tours to Freiburg’s green city with a special part of Vauban. About 25,000 such technical visitors are counted by the municipal Green City Office each year, most of them from South Korea, France and Italy, many of them politicians or (municipal) technical staff, but many also school children" (TRANSIT_01: 38).

“The growing worldwide recognition and dissemination of Vauban as a model-eco district has led to an unexpected phenomenon: more and more interested persons from all over the world have started studying, and visiting Vauban in order to learn more about the details of the district’s development – academia, politicians, technical experts, and even pupils and ordinary persons who just want to add a “green sight” to the standard visiting tour of Freiburg. Admittedly, after digesting first impressions, some of them have also voiced the possibility of “transplanting” the ideas behind the model of Vauban to other places (Interview VB2)" (TRANSIT_01: .30).

The success of the Vauban eco-district offers lessons for urban planners and mayors all over the world to learn from the example of this experimental district (TRANSIT_01: 6).

The experiences made with GENOVA e.G. have inspired the setting up of Vaubanaise e.G., also built in Vauban, and are currently informing the establishment of Esche e.G. (i.Gr.) for building about 70 housing units in another part of Freiburg in the coming years.

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

The intervention can be possibly transferred to other urban contexts. The Vauban model has been looked at and visited by experts from all over the world.

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

Activists from Forum Vauban, the municipality which supports the replication of the intervention and promotes it, and researchers from the TRANSIT project.

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

“The concept of Vauban was never entirely repeated in any other new district of Freiburg except for the low energy standard for housing which has been introduced as obligatory in Freiburg since then. Unfortunately this regulation has influenced a negative effect on affordable housing, because the standard has increased the prices. In this sense, this case reveals a danger of extracting single innovations from the overall concept or case they are embedded in. If the social innovation of citizen-lead planning and ownership – for instance in the form of housing cooperatives – was combined more often with the technical innovations of ecological building laws, affordable housing in low-energy houses could be realized on a broader basis" (TRANSIT_01: 44).

In Freiburg, the mobility concept of Vauban was never replicated because of some shortcomings that have undermined its legitimacy. While the residents of Vauban who own a car have to declare and pay for it, some free-riders did not declare it and parked in the surrounding neighborhoods. The strong criticism that arose resulted in the municipality rejecting to transfer this mobility concept to the new district of Gutleutmatten district. However, the possibility of implementing a car-free living concept in the district of Dietenbach in Freiburg is currently discussed (interview with A.).

==='''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 framework of TRANSIT project the learning process related to Vauban’s co-housing project has been record in a reflexive way, giving special attention to the section “5.1.16 Social learning through Vauban” (TRANSIT_01: 37) of a deliverable of the WP4.

There are about 25,000 visits per year in Vauban from people from all over the world, including “academia, politicians, technical experts, pupils and ordinary persons” in order to learn more about the details of the district’s development. This interest was triggered by the exhibition of the Vauban model at the World Expo 2010 in Shanghai.

Facing a growing number of inquiries about the model eco-district, the City’s planning department called for private expert agencies to provide guided tours:, “a network of professional guides hosts tours around the quarter for political and international guests” (TRANSIT_01: 30).

“At the same time, the City of Freiburg intensified its PR work to present Vauban to the interested public: a website with six subpages, online and printed brochures in six different languages, as well as imagery and presentations are available.”

The growing attention to Freiburg as a “Green City” in general and the sustainability awards it has received led the municipality to establish a designated “Green City Office." This is located in the Department of International Relations and coordinates and answers to inquiries. “The office has signed Memorandums of Understanding with four designated “Green City”- agencies to organize study visits and seminars, meeting the visitors’ interests” (TRANSIT_01: 31).

==='''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”?)'''===

Since its presentation at the HABITAT exhibition in 1996, Vauban has been looked at as an example of urban planning projects involving citizen participation, car-reduction, and sustainable living. Specifically , the creation of living spaces free of cars was inspirational for the development of several laws in Germany. The two options for choosing – either payments for a parking lot or a contribution for the association “Autofreies Wohnen” (car-free living) has “resulted in a legal amendment on the level of the State of Baden-Württemberg allowing more freedom to create diverse forms of parking lots, for instance for bikes instead for cars only” (TRANSIT_01: 29).

“Most of these visitors claim they are taking inspiration from the innovations of Vauban, but there is no monitoring or evaluation and little feedback as to where and how these inspirations have led to real changes in other places. Nevertheless, many examples show the dissemination of Vauban’s experiences. For instance, after several visits and exchanges with Vauban citizens, the nearby rural Municipality of Teningen, with which Vauban has developed a partnership, is now planning to invest in solar installations as well (VB1)” (TRANSIT_01: 39).

In addition, in “December 2015 Vauban started a city partnership with the French town Eybens, which approached Vauban to learn from its experiences as a sustainable city district” (TRANSIT_01: 36).

== 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 Freiburg, the co-creation process, the application of the principle of “Planning that learns”, as well as the creation of “City Planning Councils” set new standards for citizens participation (TRANSIT_01: 37). Building on the experience of Vauban, the city has developed a planning method able to react to new developments quickly and flexibly, allowing “enlarged” citizen participation that goes far beyond the usual demands of the construction law (TRANSIT_01: 18). For instance, a “City Planning Council” was implemented for the development of the new Dietenbach district in Freiburg. However, unlike in Vauban, the council for Dietenbach included experts (in mobility, housing), members of the municipality administration, and local parliamentarians rather than a citizen forum.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

“The main aspect of Vaubans’ innovation is the negotiation process between the urban planning office of the municipality and the strong citizen initiative of Forum Vauban with its diverse aims of a socially just, ecological district” (TRANSIT_01: 42).

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin

2021-03-05T10:42:24Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Tackling Waste: Community Practices for Food Rescuing and Sharing]]

You read this description and want to hear more about his case? Get in touch! Contact Oona Morrow for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

The selected intervention is called Foodsharing and specifically focuses on the installation of public fridges in Berlin, Germany. These fridges - or “Fair-Teiler” (derived from the German words “fair” and “verteilen”, “to distribute”) - are dispersed around the city and give people access to free and anonymously shared food. In 2018, the city of Berlin counted around 25 fridges (SHARECITY_02: 202).

The intervention specifically takes place at the capital city level. However, it includes different scales of governance. At the local level, such as a neighbourhood or a city district, public fridges are managed by a local community of food savers. Scaling-up, Foodsharing.de as an organization is structured at national and regional levels and relies on an online platform to connect food-donors to food-recipients.

==='''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.]'''===

The intervention is implemented in the sector of food. Specifically, it addresses food waste, food security, and food safety issues.

==='''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]'''===

The creation of the public fridges addresses sustainability issues by preventing food waste. By collecting food and sharing it with others, foodsharing attempts to reduce the amount of edible food that is wasted every day. The aim is also to raise awareness about the amount of waste that is generated by our food system. As a food saver in Berlin pointed out during an interview: “of course part of food-sharing is educational” (SHARECITY_02: 209). Demonstrating how perfectly good food is continuously thrown away contributes to politicizing the food issue.

The public fridges also address questions related to justice because they provide relief for food insecurity. In this context, food is understood as a “common good." This refers to resources which are “jointly governed, stewarded and shared by their users” (Ostrom and al. 1999, in SHARECITY 02: 203).

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

Foodsharing.de was created in 2012 and the public fridges were introduced two years later in 2014 (SHARECITY_02: 202). However, due to institutional and organizational constraints introduced in 2017 (see below), many public fridges in Berlin were closed and the access of the remaining ones is restricted.

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

Foodsharing.de is led by non-government actors. Specifically, Foodsharing.de is self-governed by members and based on a hierarchical and distributed governance structure shaped by “trust, sharing and food safety” (SHARECITY_02: 202).

==='''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 governance intervention is worthwhile to study and share because it meets the four criteria (mentioned in the footnote). Specifically, it provides an interesting example of a non-government led intervention based on the members’ self-governance, which works quite effectively in itself but faces obstacles related to regulatory framework.

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

Mostly:
*SHARECITY_(01)_Q&A with Anna Davies.Project lead for the *Sharecity project_DANCOX_2019
*SHARECITY_(02)_Sharing food_Berlin case_MORROW 2019
*https://foodsharing.de
*https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Hauptseite
*interview with O. (researcher) (12/06/20)

== 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).'''

The intervention has been studied as part of an EU-funded project called SHARECITY (2015-2021). The project aims at identifying and examining practices of city-based food sharing economies, referring to new forms of exchanges which entail, in most cases, environmental and social commitments.

Specifically, food sharing refers to a set of practices that includes eating (consuming), giving food (redistributing), or experiencing activities (eating together) that are done collectively. The Sharecity100 database maps food sharing initiatives all around the world (SHARECITY_11). From it, nine cities have been selected for conducting in-depth ethnographic analyses. Foodsharing.de is a case study for this project, though the organization itself was not created within the framework of SHARECITY.

*'''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.'''

The intervention fits under the [[Sharing and cooperatives for urban commons| sharing and cooperatives for urban commons approach]]. Sharecity project is explicitly mentioned in the database as it shows the transformative potential of food sharing initiatives for sustainable cities.

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

Yes: SHARECITY_(02)_Sharing food_Berlin case_MORROW 2019

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

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

The question of inequality and exclusion has been addressed by the founders of foodsharing.de with their intentions to establish food as a “common good”, accessible to everyone, and free from monetary transactions (Fellmer 2014, in SHARECITY_02: 204).

Public fridges also breakdown the boundaries between donors, recipients, and providers. Hence, the aim is to to reduce the stigma of free food and deconstruct power relations and the perpetuation of inequalities often seen in food aid organizations. Indeed, donors and recipients do not need to meet social criteria (i.e. precarity, low incomes…) to share or receive food anonymously. This differs from other food aid organizations such as food banks or the German TAFEL. With the blurring identification of donors and recipients, public fridges step out of the scheme of assistantship and refuse the relation of power and the domination it implies.

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

Justice is explicitly pointed out as a major motivation behind the creation of public fridges. Established two years after the creation of foodsharing.de, public fridges address exclusionary issues and make food available to everyone. Both food savers and external recipients can access these public fridges. This is highly valued among food savers (SHARECITY_02: 205).

In addition, public fridges provide opportunities for gathering and reduce social isolation. Indeed, located in public and/or open places (e.g. at the entrance of buildings, often next to community centres), public fridges are suitable for regular encounters. As a food saver recalls: “It (a public fridge) also has a social aspect. Because you often meet people there [...] then you stand there and chat for a bit and it’s totally nice” (SHARECITY_02: 205). Therefore, public fridges contribute to enhance urban sociability and community-building and de-stigmatize free food at the same time.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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 ]]
| X
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
| X
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The public fridges were initiated by members of Foodsharing.de in Berlin. This community-based intervention is an innovation within the social movement of Foodsharing.de.

It was initiated without institutional support (i.e. urban policies or public food programs) and foodsharing aims to remain outside such institutional framework. <ref>Foodsharing.de Wiki. Last view on 24/01/20:https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Kontext_und_Selbstverst%C3%A4ndnis
</ref>

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

The envisioned benefiters of public fridges are food savers/sharers themselves and any recipients among the local inhabitants of Berlin. Public fridges provide access to free food and contribute to community-building among their users. In addition, food companies or retailers also benefit from the intervention because less food they handle is wasted (i.e. ethical dimension) and the costs related to waste disposal are exempted (i.e. economical dimension).

==='''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
| X
| The members of foodsharing who are responsible for maintaining public fridges.
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
| X
| Food companies and retailers that give unsellable food to food savers.
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| The Food Safety Authority of Berlin that ensures compliance with the food safety laws.
The Berlin Senate that locally enforces (food safety) regulations.

|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
| X
| The German legislator that translates into the national law the European food safety regulations.
|-
| Supranational government
| X
| (To some extent) The European Union that defines the food safety regulation.

|-
| 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 intervention was triggered by the existing Foodsharing network along with other community organizations that were involved in similar social and cultural interventions.

Foodsharing.de provides social resources (i.e. experienced activists in food saving) as well as organizational resources (i.e. the online platform that connects donors to recipients) for establishing public fridges. Most public fridges are hosted by other community organizations collaborating with foodsharing and provide space for the fridges (e.g. plugging them into electricity). This network of relationships supports activists eager to set up new public fridges and facilitate the operating of existing ones.

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

The public fridges have been established by the volunteer members of foodsharing.de. Thus, public fridges are a community-based, grassroots initiative. Not only have citizens created foodsharing and installed public fridges, but they also regulate them and are responsible for keeping them running. Public fridges are thus self-managed systems to share food and are operated without public intervention.

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

Foodsharing.de is hierarchically structured. Each position entails specific responsibilities that help maintain trust between activists in the organization and ensure the smooth functioning of foodsharing.de (SHARECITY_13: 66).

Registered through the online platform, "food sharers” can take food from public dispensers and through the process get better acquainted with the project and other activists. As Foodsharing.de aims at being open to everyone, this first level of commitment has a very low threshold.

However, becoming a “food saver” is more exclusive. It requires the successful completion of an online quiz about food policies, their ideological stance, and organizational rules in addition to attendance at local meetings. Food saver “applicants” have to take part in several food rescue operations to receive a “FoodSaver passport,” which allows them to visit partner companies for picking up food. This status entails a high level of commitment and additional responsibilities (SHARECITY_13: 67).

Further hierarchical levels include the “store coordinators," who manage food savers’ coordination with the partner stores, and “ambassadors,” who are responsible for accrediting new food savers and for creating new partnerships with food retailers (SHARECITY_13). The “orgateam” coordinate and decide the national policy of foodsharing.de (Yunity, 2017, in SHARECITY_02: 203).

It is notable that the rules, including those regarding food safety and sharing, are enforced by the membership through self-monitoring and peer surveillance (SHARECITY_02: 208). Every “violation," such as being late for a pick-up, carelessness with sharing food, or poor maintenance of public fridges, are reported by other members. Excessive infractions are sanctioned by ambassadors and lead to the loss of food savers' privileges or even to exclusion. On the contrary, good practices are rewarded by co-savers. All violations and rewards are reported in an ICT platform (e.g. blame or “trust bananas” to reward positive behaviour). Specifically, Foodsharing.de is based on a reputational economy mediated by their online platform (SHARECITY_02: 208).

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

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

Public fridges are meant to be accessible to everyone. Whereas most public fridges are located in community centers, their access may depend on their stigma or that of their users (e.g. a community center having certain connotations or a specific cultural/political identity). In that sense, some people could exclude themselves (interview with O.). However, the exclusive dimension related to public fridges is not really about accessing food but rather about actively engaging in the organization of food sharing. As mentioned above, becoming a foodsharer entails a very exclusive procedure, including a quiz testing your abilities and commitment. In addition, foodsharing rules and ideology (written and detailed in the wiki) and the quiz are only written in German. This quiz thus excludes non-German speakers and greatly reduces the scope of members who are eligible/able to become food savers.

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

This exclusionary dimension is related to Foodsharing's hierarchical structure. Food is made available for everyone but only those who are willing to commit themselves to a certain extent (including picking food on a regular basis, redistributing it, etc.) can take responsibility for collecting food. Food sharers are sometimes people who have already collected food for the community and are willing to volunteer time or energy that people in need may not be able/willing to commit.

The exclusionary dimension of the quiz is an ongoing discussion within foodsharing. It has been created with the idea to filter people who could create problems (including being too greedy or giving the organization a bad reputation). As Foodsharing becomes more popular and has many applicants, the organization does not have the capacity to train so many people about food safety and collection, much of which the quiz already covers (including values and knowledge). If revising the quiz has been discussed within the organisation, the ability to do it seems beyond most of the food sharers (interview with O.)

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

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

Foodsharing and their public fridges were created as a response to the gridlock of a food system that generates too much waste. Whereas food regulations do not effectively address this problem, this community-based initiative developed to find a solution that would alleviate and raise awareness about this issue. Foodsharing developed in a context of growing public awareness about food issues and the development of other forms of sharing economies, including initiatives in the sector of clothing, mobility, and energy (interview O.).

==='''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]])'''===

The intervention has been framed by regulatory legislation (i.e. administrative, command-and-control) that address food risk, safety, and waste policies.

Food risk policies regulate the food chain “from farm to fork” (i.e. production, proceeding, storage, transportation, distribution and redistribution) and food hygiene policies outline food safety best practices (i.e. the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems, the cold chain as well as the Codex Alimenarius standards). Those regulations are mainly set up at the European level and are adapted nationally and locally.

Public fridges challenge the legal framework regulating food risk and food waste. This legal framework includes three levels of regulation - European, national and local - and only applies to food businesses (i.e. entrepreneurs handling food). At the European level, it includes EU 178/2002 General Food Law regulating food risk. This law enforces responsibility for those dealing with food and mandates the total traceability of the food chain (i.e. from one step backward and one step forward). In addition, EU 852/2004, Food Hygiene Law regulates food safety best practices and identifies food which is safe or non-injurious to health. EU 852 regulation is particularly responsive to local contexts and gives national and/or local authorities the competence to determine in which circumstances this regulation is to be applied (i.e. to determine whether an organization is a business or not) (SHARECITY 02: 206).

==='''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?'''===

According to the hierarchy of norms, European laws (described above) are transposed into the German federal law. At the national level, the European laws are enforced and supported by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). The latter is responsible for food monitoring through the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) and the Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR). However, the responsibility for food control lays on the federal states (Länder). At the local level, each state has a Food Safety Authority (FSA) that ensures compliance with the food safety laws.<ref>Website of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Last view on 24/01/20 https://www.bmel.de/EN/Food/Safe-Food/safe-food_node.html.</ref>The FSA is competent to determine whether an organization is a food business or not and thus, whether it has to comply with EU regulations or not. In addition, food safety entails to look at the German civil code for consumer protection (i.e. § 13 BGB) stating that businesses are liable for the goods and services they provide (including food) (SHARECITY 02: 206).

However, foodsharing.de is assumed to be uncovered by food law, despite being framed in response to it. Public fridges aim to remain outside of this food legislation. Theoretically, European as well as national food safety regulations apply to businesses and not domestic users. Specifically, businesses are characterized by a certain continuity and degree of organization. In contrast, public fridges seek to remain in the realm of domestic use. This is justified by the non-continuity of the activity (i.e. the relationship between users of public fridges are uncertain as there is no supervision of who exchanges food with whom) and the low degree of organization (i.e. the small quantity of food gathered in public fridges refers to domestic and not to business uses).<ref>Foodsharing.de Wiki. Last view on 24/01/20: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Fair-Teiler_und_Abgabestellen.</ref> In doing so, foodsharing aims at avoiding the need for compliance with the guidelines of a food business.

==='''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.)'''===

The local political culture has influenced the character of the intervention. Foodsharing members established themselves as actors of the food system. It means that a civil society organization feels entitled to facilitate interventions in the city, to redesign and occupy the public space, and to address disfunction in the food system. Citizens are political actors giving themselves agency for political action, indicating a strong democratic culture (interview O.).

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

Foodsharing.de is self-financed through donations. In 2012, the organization started with a capital collected through crowdfunding (i.e. via the platform Stratnext). Today, a small circle of supporting members as well as single donations provide funding. The organization seeks to minimize its expenses (i.e. foodsharing motto is “as little money as possible should be used”). These expenses include the Foodsharing-Festival, costs for accounting, traveling costs and the salary of one single employee in a mini-job.<ref> Foodsharing.de Wiki .Last view on24/01/20: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Foodsharing_e.V._und_dessen_Vorstand.</ref>

Foodsharing.de is run on a voluntary basis and is based on unpaid commitment. Voluntary work includes the creation of the online platform, the webhosting (sponsored), the support from lawyers and other tasks such as the maintenance of the online platform and mediation of regional groups. Drawing from an ideological perspective, foodsharing.de aims to be as free from financial support as possible (there are some exceptions where money is used) and work with committed people without money transactions.<ref>Foodsharing.de Wiki. Last view on24/01/20: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Umgang_mit_Geld_bei_foodsharing.</ref>

Foodsharing.de does not receive any public subsidies and is run without support from public authorities.

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

Yes, changes in the understanding of which organizations are food-businesses or not have influenced the intervention in a negative way. Foodsharing.de Berlin has been recognized by the FSA as a food business and thus, has been asked to comply with the food safety regulation (see below Q.23 “obstacles”).

'''''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'''

The public fridges monitored by foodsharing.de in Berlin were targeted by the FSA of Berlin, which has a narrow understanding of business and considers that foodsharing falls into this category. Thus, the FSA brought the EU 178/2002 General Food Law regulating food risk and the EU 852/2004 Food Hygiene Law regulating food safety practices in opposition to foodsharing.de. Consequently, foodsharing in Berlin must be responsible for the content of the fridges and for the traceability of the food one step backward (i.e. before entering the fridges) and one step forward (i.e. who is taking it). This would require food savers to record every single food item which is saved and to designate an individual (i.e. a member of foodsharing) who is responsible for it.

In January 2017, the Berlin Senate enforced a new set of rules governing public fridges in line with the EU 178 and 852 regulations. It required foodsharing.de to follow the safety rules such as a business and to name an individual “responsible for the contents of each fridge and their traceability” (SHARECITY 02: 207).

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

The self-governance practices of foodsharing opposes food governance practices built upon the EU and national regulations (SHARECITY_02: 203). Indeed, food governance at the level of the European Union is built upon risks and responsibilities. Drawing on Ulrich Beck’s theory of risk, food safety regulations understand risk at a global level rather than at the individual one. Thus, preventing food risk entails scientific processes of risk assessment which rely on technological methods applied by experts rather than by people (SHARECITY_02: 204). On the contrary, food savers understand risk at a local scale, from the point of collection (food stores) to recipients. Hence, the conflict opposing foodsharing and the FSA about the food safety issue over public fridges depends on different scales of governance and understanding of risk.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

Foodsharing is run by (unpaid) volunteers and does not have the capacity (i.e. not enough human resources) to record the circulation of the food prior to and after the fridges (in contrast to organizations that employ people such as food banks) (SHARECITY_02: 209).

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

The obstacles related to the regulatory framework as a cultural aspect. The European food safety legislation applies everywhere. However, in many countries there is often a grey area, such as community initiatives, which is tolerated by the public actors such as food safety authorities. In Germany and specifically in Berlin, the FSA does not leave room for this grey area and establishes a strict separation between the private and the public realms. Collectively dealing with food outside of households is under the responsibility of the FSA (interview with O.)

== 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?
|-
| Call for Foodsharing to endorse liability for the content of the fridges.

Limited handling capacities
| Foodsharing refuses to comply with this call on practical and ideological grounds. First, no members would accept to endorse the liability for a fridge which is not possible to be fully controlled. In contrast to organizations that employ people to record the circulation of the food (such as food banks), a volunteer-based organization does not have enough human resources to do this work. On the other hand, the EU regulations contrast with some founding principles of the public fudges such as the anonymity of donors/recipients. Recording the circulation of food would indeed lapse this anonymity (SHARECITY_02: 207).

Instead of designating someone responsible for a fridge, Foodsharing communicated the names and contact details of their entire Foodsharing group. In doing so, not only they refuse that one individual undertakes the liability for public fridges, but also, they stand for the collective management of these fridges (SHARECITY_02: 210).
|-
| The enforcement by the Berlin Senate of a new set of rules governing public fridges in line with the EU 178 and 852 regulations.
| In response to the Berlin Senate enforcement, Foodsharing Berlin intended to reframe public fridges as private “club goods” and not businesses (SHARECITY_02: 210). In doing so, they have restricted access to public fridges to Foodsharing members. In addition, Foodsharing Berlin publicly stated that Foodsharing is not a business and that the food inside the fridges is not regulated. This statement was issued with a view to discharge the organization from its liability towards food.
The FSA started to pressure the community centers hosting public fridges by threatening them with a fine. Put at financial risk, many organizations have stopped to host public fridges.
|-
|}

== 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.'''===

Regarding their sustainability goals, Foodsharing.de has prevented an enormous amount of food from being wasted. Since 2012, Foodsharing.de has “rescued” about 12,796,298 kg of food.<ref>Foodsharing.de Wiki. Last view on 04/02/20: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Kontext_und_Selbstverst%C3%A4ndnis.</ref> Foodsavers rescued nearly a metric ton of food in Berlin alone.<ref>Last view on 04/02/20: https://www.dw.com/en/food-sharing-initiative-battles-berlin-authorities-over-closed-community-fridges/a-19042114
.</ref>This includes the food which has been saved before (from 2012 to 2014) and after the introduction of public fridges.

The public fridges established in Berlin were an attempt to address sustainability and social justice. However, the obstacles posed by the Berlin Senate and the rules enforced by the FSA reduced the impact of public fridges. Their closing and the restricted access of those remaining few jeopardizes the core objective of the initiative, which was to make food available to everyone and to destigmatize free food.

== 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.'''

Other kinds of food sharing initiatives developed in Berlin, including community gardens, food banks, and meal saving. Other forms of sharing economies focus on sectors like clothing, services, mobility etc.. Foodsharing members tend to be involved in other sharing initiatives, which informs how a context of social innovation can be a fertile ground for the development of similar interventions. Building on a network and having experience in engaging collectively may have been crucial for the creation of public fridges.

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

Foodsharing started in Cologne (Germany)and regional branches of the organization developed in other German cities. However, Foodsharing in Berlin initiated the creation of public fridges. This was spurred from experiences members had had from working in other sectors. There are no explicit evidences of this inter-city learning.

=== 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'''

Knowledge has been acquired from other regional food sharing groups in Germany, especially Cologne where the headquarter of the organization is located. Specifically, food sharing Berlin can compare how other regional groups deal with the food safety legislation. Hence, Foodsharing Berlin can advocate that the organization is not recognized as a business in the other Federal States of Germany and use this argument to oppose the local legislation.

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

n/a

=== 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?'''===

Foodsharing and public fridges successfully took hold in Berlin because it is adapted to the local context. Berlin has an active subculture and appropriate urban infrastructure to facilitate strong sharing-based economies.

First, there are a lot of people in Berlin with the time and the enthusiasm to engage in this type of action. This is a part of the local subculture with a politic attached to it that made the intervention possible to emerge (interview with O.).

Second, foodsharing can develop in a context where a lot of food is available (mostly urban context) and the infrastructure to help the logistics of food collection and distribution (such as bicycles, public transport etc.) (SHARECITY_14). Because much of the food is perishable, donors and recipients must be quickly connected. Thus, short distances and facilitated access matter.

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

The members of Foodsharing Berlin confronted with these obstacles learned how to navigate political and administrative channels. They got used to making public statements and press releases and participated in meetings with local authorities and elected officials. In that sense, facing these obstacles has contributed to the politicization of the Foodsharing members (interview with O.).

In addition, by refusing to comply with the requisite food traceability and individual liability (see Q. 24), the organization has reframed and strengthened its political line and clarified the ambition its movement (inferred from SHARECITY_02: 210).

==='''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.'''===

The tools that enable the learning process include:
*the ICT- platform that gives information about Foodsharing.de’s actions and food distribution.
*the mentorship between prospective food savers and initiated food savers.
*the use wiki that compiles the political line and all the practical information that enable prospective food sharer/saver to enter the organization.

== 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]'''

The members of Foodsharing are actively making sure that the initiative is spread. Active members have tried to expand Foodsharing outside of Germany. For instance, Foodsharing developed in the Netherlands, where some public fridges are now located in Amsterdam and Wageningen (interview with O.).

Specifically, the group Yunity<ref>Yunity website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://yunity.org/en.</ref> originates from the Foodsharing movement and is developing tools and software for enabling other people in multiple contexts to start their own food sharing network. There are going all across the world doing Akaton to create community-based software and logistics tools to start foodsharing. The idea is to share this technology that supports foodsharing beyond the original movement (Interview with O.).

In addition, the replicability of food sharing initiatives such as Foodsharing.de has been pointed out in the project SHARECITY and its toolkit called “SHARE IT toolkit” (SHARECITY_09).<ref>Sharecity website. Last view on 04/02/20: https://sharecity.ie/getting-started-with-the-share-it-toolkit/.</ref> The case of Foodsharing in Berlin demonstrates food governance arrangements and issues stressing food sharing regulations (i.e. social rules and legal instruments), as well as the obstacles to be overcome in order to replicate and transfer sharing initiatives.

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

Public fridges can be transferred to many different urban contexts. However, a set of prerequisites have been identified (interview with O.).
*a political subculture and enthusiasm from people to engage in sharing activities
*the feeling of the right to the city. This means that people feel that the city is theirs, making it possible to redesign it, to appropriate the space, and make interventions.
For example, in a city like New York City, inhabitants do not necessarily feel this right to the city as the tight to use public space is different from Berlin. Community fridges just developed in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, because so many people could not access grocery stores or food banks.
*political structures offering space for such initiatives to develop.

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

The claim about replicability as been made by the intervention’s proponent i.e. Foodsharing members.

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

On top of the prerequisites detailed in Q.31 b), uncertainty about the legal aspect of Foosharing is a limit to transferability. Many people including activists or food retailers do not want to adopt liability for donated or saved food, which greatly hampers saving and sharing. Legal framework that removes liability for donated food, such as the Good Samaritan Laws in the US, would allow such initiatives to develop. However, such a regulation would come into tension with the EU regulation that requires that someone is always responsible for food, thus creating a free zone.

In addition, limits to transferability also depends on how people get food and how it is delivered. It is attached to the political culture and to what people see as the role of citizens and of the state. If people are used to a food bank to do this work, they might not engage themselves because it is the responsibility of government and social structures to make sure that the people have enough money to afford food (interview with O.).

==='''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 obstacles faced by Foodsharing.de Berlin have been recorded in the wiki of Foodsharing.de<ref>Foodsharing website. Fair-Teiler-Problem in Berlin. Last view on 26/06/20: https://wiki.foodsharing.de/Fair-Teiler_und_Abgabestellen.</ref> as well as the response of Foodsharing Berlin (i.e. refusal to comply with the injunction).

==='''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”?)'''===

Foodsharing is actively expanding to other cities and sharing tools to create Foodsharing networks. The Foodsharing group is expanding in other countries with the support of German activists.

On top of the Yunity groups (see Q. 31 a), other collaborations have been reported. For example in London, a non-profit app connecting food donors to recipients called Olio<ref>Olio website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://olioex.com/.</ref> has been created with the support of Foodsharing members. These people have been hired by Olio to help them to develop this application. Other types of applications such as Too Good To Go try to monetize the relationships that food savers have built with restaurants and food retailers but also contribute to expanding ITC mediated food sharing. There are many other initiatives that are directly or indirectly connected to Foodsharing (interview with O.).

In addition, the SHARECITY1000 database<ref> Sharecity database. Last view on 26/06/20: https://sharecity.ie/research/sharecity100-database/.</ref> lists 124 kinds of food sharing initiatives in Berlin (including Foodsharing.de) from a range of activities including community gardens, shared meals, shared bread etc.. These initiatives have not been reportedly inspired from Foodsharing.de

== 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?

The intervention does not seem to have really changed governance arrangements in a structural way. Some People in foodsharing are also involved in local food policy councils and assimilated structures.

Since Foodsharing is a loose and open network, everyone has their own motivations to commit and it is not possible to generalize everyone's aims. Whereas some members have a radical political view and aim at changing the food system and the whole economy, other people just want to have less food waste and have a food system that generates less waste. Foodsharing works to some degree because there is space for these different motivations (more or less radical) and offers everyone to join the movement.

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

It seems important to stress the potential of ICT-mediated sharing to allow initiatives to develop in the future. These new forms of food sharing extend the spaces and the social spheres where sharing takes place. As they involve diverse actors such as the civil society and policy makers and tackle food regulations, ICT-mediated food sharing constructs new governance arrangements. It implies a set of rules and practices that are established by the interaction – conflicting or not - between citizens, entrepreneurs, and policy makers to regulate food sharing. The disruptive potential of ICT-mediated sharing should be further inquired (SHARECITY_06).

==='''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?'''===

Foodsharing.de is based on a reputational economy mediated by an online platform. This study case highlights the potential of the reputational economy of ICT-mediated sharing to promote self-governance in common initiatives (SHARECITY 02: 208). Foodsharing governance arrangements offer an alternative to the current legal framework for regulating food in a more sustainable and fair way.

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome

2021-03-05T10:41:48Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at [[Countering Gentrification: Community Based and Collaborative Methods]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact Lorreta Lee for more information.

{{toclimit|limit=2}}
== 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)”]'''====

The selected intervention refers to anti-gentrification resistances in the Roman district of Trastevere (Italy). The district is going through a long-lasting process of gentrification, which applies to the whole city centre of Rome. As a result of the increasing evictions, citizens have started to resist displacement, namely by “staying put” (AGAPE_01: 1).
The intervention has been primarily developed at the local level but tackles different scales. Organized resistances started in neighbourhoods by tenants' unions and individual squatters occupying buildings. Anti-eviction platforms voice these claims at the district level in Trastevere. Multiple pressures on public authorities (from the public housing authority, the municipality of Rome, the Lazio region) result in the implementation of regulatory policies at the municipal or the regional level (e.g. sanatoria to regularize squatters).

===='''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.]'''====

This intervention is implemented in the fields of housing policies and urban social policies, specifically in a context of austerity policies.

===='''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'''====

The Trastevere district is facing gentrification resulting from a roll-back of state protection of housing stock and privatized public housing. As a result, the prices of tenancies dramatically increased, which led to a severe housing crisis and to police-led evictions. In this context, anti-gentrification resistance emerged from the civil society as a call for the right of local residents to remain in the district. The resistances address social justice in the following terms:
*Call for regularizing informal housing such as squatting in public housing estates.
*Tenants' request of becoming owners of the public housing.
*Call to freeze and stabilize the prices of tenancies in public housing.

The sustainability issue is not directly addressed by the residents of the district. AGAPE addresses sustainability with respect to social justice in terms of “social sustainability”. The latter refers to the fight of low income and marginalized people struggling to survive day to day and to their right to “stay put” i.e. to remain in their homes.

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

In Rome, anti-gentrification resistance progressively emerged in line with the gentrification process. This ongoing process started in the 1990’s with a national law abolishing the rent control (i.e. guaranteeing moderate price rental) (AGAPE_01: 5). Specifically, the AGAPE project focuses on resistance from 2014 (when the project started) until present.

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

The intervention is firstly characterized by non-government led governance mode and progressively turned to a co-governed or hybrid governance mode as soon as public actors engaged in the intervention.

===='''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 case of Trastevere district is interesting because it specifically focuses on urban social (in)justices (i.e. participation, exclusion). It sheds light on the governance arrangements emerging from anti-gentrification practices in a specific context of crisis and austerity in southern European countries (SECs).

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

Primarily:
*AGAPE_01_Everyday resistances in gentrifying contexts_ANNUNZIATA_2019
*AGAPE_02_Garbatella. Heritage, Gentrification, and Public Policies in Rome, Italy_ANNUNZIATA_2019
*AGAPE_03_Resisting ‘Austerity Gentrification’ and Displacement in Southern Europe_ANNUZIATE_et_LEES_2016
*AGAPE_05_Philipp Katsinas reviews anti-gentrification workshop, ‘Staying Put’_KATSINAS_2017

== 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).'''

The intervention has been developed in the framework of the EU-funded project AGAPE (2014-16).<ref>AGAPE project on the Cordis portal. Last view on: 10/02/20: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/625691.</ref> The project aims at exploring the development of anti-gentrification practices in three Southern European cities (SECs) (i.e. Rome, Madrid and Athens) in the context of the post-2008 economic crisis. Specifically, the project seeks to determine the repertoire of collective actions to “stay put” (AGAPE_01) and to resist displacement as well as to contribute to gentrification resistance theories.

Gentrification refers to “a process involving a change in the population of land users such that the new users are of a higher socioeconomic status than the previous users, together with an associated change in the built environment through a reinvestment in fixed capital” (Clark 2005: 263, in AGAPE 01: 3).

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Reconceptualising urban justice and sustainability]] and the [[Right to housing]]approaches. The project is explicitly mentioned in the database under these two approaches.

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

Yes: AGAPE_01_Everyday resistances in gentrifying contexts_ANNUNZIATA_2019

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

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

In the case of the gentrification process in Trastevere, inequality and exclusion have been problematized by local inhabitants as well as researchers (from AGAPE project). They refer to the exclusions of lower income residents from Rome’s city center due to the privatization of public housing and the correlated gentrification process. Here, gentrification consists in a subtle transformation of the residential tenures and retails oriented to tourism and the eviction of the former working-class dwellers.

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

The achievement of justice has been named as a major motivation behind the intervention. The project AGAPE seeks to draw attention to anti-gentrification practices in Southern European cities (SECs) “with a particular focus on their incorporation into - and capabilities to inform - local policy makings”. Hence, the goal is to support and voice anti-gentrification practices and policies in order to counter “urban inequality” as well as to set up a “post-crisis urban agenda aimed at achieving social justice”. The intervention in Trastevere district in Rome has been selected because it sheds on social injustices but also because the intervention has a potential for informing about resistances and “alternative narratives” on counter-gentrification practices.

*'''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]]
| X
|
|-
| 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]]
| X
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 4. [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration | Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]]
| X
|
|-
| 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 ]]
| X
|
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The intervention was initiated by some citizens in Rome, especially the local inhabitants directly targeted by the gentrification process and the evictions. Resisting gentrification includes a set of practices from “everyday” and individual to “collectively organized” actions i.e. within groups created for this purpose such as neighborhood organizations, community groups and tenants’ unions (e.g. The Comitato di Lotta per la casa del Centro Storico or the Network of San Saba) (AGAPE_01: 7). It is primarily a bottom-up intervention.

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

The benefiters of the intervention are the local residents themselves (i.e. people used to live in Trastevere district) who “stay put” and might have a chance to remain in the district. Scaling up, the intervention also benefits other low income and marginalized residents of Rome potentially targeted by gentrification and austerity and housing policies. Generally, counter this process will benefit everyone concerned by social justice.

===='''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
| X
| Organized anti-eviction platforms (i.e. platforms are citizens’ organizations including local tenants’ unions as well as anti-gentrification activists). They support and help targeted residents and voice their claim to fight evictions. They also advocate for social justice and housing solutions as well as pressure the Housing Authority and the municipality (AGAPE_01: 9).
|-
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations
|
|
|-
| Platforms
|
|
|-
| NGOs
|
|
|-
| Social movements
|
|
|-
| Political parties
|
|
|-
| Media
|
|
|-
| Unions
|
|
|-
| Social entreprises
|
|
|-
| For profit entreprises
|
|
|-
| Local/regional government
| X
|
*The municipality of Rome. Its role is ambivalent. At first, it launched policies of public housing privatisation including the abolishment of rent control. Then, as a result of citizens’ protests, it started to mitigate the effect of gentrification by securing some public housing from privatisation.
*The Lazio region. Same as the municipality. After it had launched privatisation policies (e.g. allowing the municipality of Rome to sell 70% of its public housing), it started to mitigate those effects and regularised some informal housing.
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
| X
| National government enforced in the 1990s the right-to-buy legislation that regulates the alienation of and the privatization of public properties (AGAPE_02: 6).
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| The Housing Authority of Rome. It is responsible for allocating and administering social housing. It enforced the rental-homeownership conversion (i.e. according to the right-to-buy national law), which consists in offering tenants of public housing to buy their housing at moderate prices.
|}

===='''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.'''====

'''''(Please, note that italicized sections are speculative)'''''

''The residents organize themselves locally, especially within anti-eviction platforms that are responsible for helping residents in distress but also voicing their claim to the public authorities. Anti-eviction platforms are crucial mediators because they convey the claims of the most deprived inhabitants (e.g. isolated persons, squatters) as well as of the neighbourhood groups or tenant’s unions. They are the identified interlocutors of the municipality and the Housing Authority and perform this back-and-forth work.''

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

This intervention is based on and driven by citizens. The anti-eviction platforms as well as the community groups (e.g. of squatters) are the results of grassroot initiatives. The intervention of public actors (i.e. the housing authority and the municipality) to alleviate evictions or of external supporters (i.e. activists or researchers in the framework of AGAPE project) voicing the claims add to the already existing grassroot resistances.

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

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

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

Migrants (and to some extent Romany people) are excluded from this intervention. Although many are living in informal housing and are more likely to be targeted by evictions (recalling the example of a massive and brutal eviction in the via Curatone which took place in August 2017) (AGAPE_01: 12), they are not included in resistance groups and are thus not represented.

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

The intervention is mainly implemented by community groups that frame themselves by neighbourhoods. However, the neighbourliness as understood and mobilized by local inhabitants is ambiguous. It recalls the idea of “‘popular’ neighbourhood” (AGAPE_01: 7) without being altruistic or supportive of other social groups. As a consequence, neighbourliness might be exclusive in particular towards migrants who are not parts of this “historical working-class narrative” (which in this context is also related to collective memories of solidarity and resistance during the German occupation and to anti-fascist pride) (AGAPE_01: 7).

The exclusion of some social groups (i.e. migrants, Romany) potentially breaks down solidarity among activists. It also weakens and reduces the impact of anti-gentrification resistance since only long-time local inhabitants who share this “working class” narrative may benefit while neglected social groups are even more likely to face evictions.

== 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 intervention takes place in a context of economic crisis and austerity after the 2008 crisis. This reinforced the ongoing housing shortages that began in the 1990's. The gentrification process fostered by the enforcement of neoliberal housing policies (e.g. the abolishment of the rent control) and the multiplication of the evictions were the catalysts of the citizens' resistances.

===='''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]])'''====

The intervention is framed by urban social policies and housing policies. It addresses regulatory policies enforced both at the local level, specifically the abolishment of rent control (1992-1998) (i.e. referring to the abolishment of a housing price ceiling guarantee by the municipality), and at the national level, specifically the sale at moderate price of publicly owned residential stock (i.e. the right-to-buy national law, December 21, 1993, no. 560) (AGAPE_01, AGAPE_02: 1). In the framework of the right-to-buy national legislation, the local government established the rental-home ownership conversion that offers a cheaper buying price than the normal market and only applies to tenants.

These refer to economic policies because they provide favorable economic conditions for targeted actors (i.e. tourists, multinational companies and wealthy people) while they are economically detrimental for others (i.e. low income inhabitants).

Before the enforcement of the right-to-buy legislation, public housing was nationally administered by a public autonomous body called the Istituto Case Popolari (ICP)<ref>The ICP was created in 1903 to better provide and manage decent housing for the working-class (AGAPE_ 02).</ref>(AGAPE_02: 1). Entitlement to public housing was conferred in perpetuity to tenants, protecting them from being evicted. This system of tenure prevented the sell of units for profits (Annunziata 2019_AGAPE 02).

However, the privatization of public estates started in 1993 and was enforced in a national law. The denationalization of public assets was fostered in 2001 to solve the public debt (decreto Legislativo, September 25, 2001, no.351). “In 2006 the Lazio region, in charge of Rome’s building and planning regulations, approved legislation requiring that the city sell up to 70 percent of its public housing” and in 2007 a list of public properties to be sold was issued by the municipality (AGAPE_02: 7).

===='''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 privatisation of public residential property since 1993 was established in accordance with constitutional norms, in particular the art. 47 of the constitution. The national law of December 24, 1993, no. 560 defines the framework of the privatization of public estate. It gives regional governments the power to administer the alienation of 50 to 75 percent of public property (AGAPE_02: 12). Incentivized from a national impulse, the privatization of public housing is enforced in regional (i.e. Lazio region) and municipal (i.e. Rome) legislation.

===='''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.)'''====

Both citizens and public actors have ambivalent views on the regulatory framework of the intervention. On the one hand, while citizens and local inhabitants strongly denounce privatisation policies, some of those who can afford to buy (at moderate price) their (public) housing are likely to do it. On the other hand, although the municipality and the Housing Authorities implement privatisation policies, they are responsive to some extent to citizens' claims and negotiate some sort of rental tenure (e.g. the regularization of informal housing or the re-housing of evicted inhabitants). These formal/ informal negotiations and mutual pressures between public actors and citizens result in a nexus of ordinary and collective resistances (AGAPE_01: 5).

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

n/a

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

n/a

'''''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'''

The above mentioned (Q.18) regulatory framework of privatization of public housing is detrimental for those who resist gentrification. In addition, the negotiated agreements between public actors and citizens can also hinder the resistance. For instance, the rental-home ownership conversion accepted by some tenants creates disagreement between citizens (between those who accept and those who decline) and contributes to weaken civil society resistances to gentrification.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

Narratives from public actors pose obstacles to legitimacy. Moralizing and criminalizing illegal housing (AGAPE_01: 6) are the counterparts to the spatial cleansing (i.e. privatization and eviction) they perform. The stigmatization of squatting practices is used to justify the eviction of illegal occupants of public housing.

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

For some inhabitants, staying put and anti-gentrification resistance consists in accepting the rental-home ownership conversion (i.e. according to the right-to-buy legislation) offered by the Housing Authority. However, even at moderate prices, only middle class tenants can afford to buy their own housing while people of lower means cannot even afford it (AGAPE_01: 8).

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

The rental-home ownership conversion breaks down solidarity among community groups. Buying their own housing represents a “deep cultural aspiration” (AGAPE_01: 11) for some tenants and will prevent them from being evicted. A large number of them stand for it, especially middle class people who can afford to buy it. However, this standpoint is not shared by everyone. Specifically, those who cannot afford to buy their housing (i.e. people of lower means) or are not offered it by the Housing Authority (tenders are rather arbitrary) are very dubious about the rental-homeownership conversion. As S. Annunziata and C. Rivas Alonso recall, the right-to-buy at moderate price in prestigious locations (the city center of Rome) reduces the stock of housing available as well as “reduces future allocation and results in an individual appropriation of the value gap produced by de-commodified assets now solving social needs”(AGAPE_01: 11). The right-to-buy legislation is controversial because it breaks down solidarity among social groups and fosters gentrification rather than resolves it.

== 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?
|-
| Displacement and eviction of some illegal occupiers of the public housing.
| To (partly) curb the gentrification process and react to citizens' claims, public actors negotiated with community groups to find solutions against displacement. This includes the re-location of former residents in public housing or the regularization of illegal occupiers (i.e. in the framework of a sanatoria). The latter results from the call for anti-eviction moratoria issued by the anti-eviction platform as a way “to recognize the chronic housing deficit and the inadequacy of the public housing authority to act promptly in case of housing deprivation” (AGAPE_01: 9).
|-
| Eviction and public narrative criminalizing squatting practices.
| To fight eviction and pressure public authorities, anti-eviction platforms and other organized groups try to draw public attention to the housing issue. Inviting more actors to join the resistance and make it visible increases the critical mass and puts a greater pressure on public authorities. As an example, one anti-eviction platform (one of the most influential in Rome) asked the informal squatter to participate in a strike and to be actively a part of the collective struggle for housing. As a result, the request for housing is also voiced by those directly concerned as well as “scandalize the housing authority for not being capable of providing responses” (AGAPE_0: 91).
|
|}

== 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.'''====

'''''(Please, note that italicized sections are speculative)'''''

''The asserted economic outcomes (not observed up to now ) are to stabilize and freeze the prices of tenancies in public housing in the city center of Rome, especially in public housing and to protect the latter from being privatized.''

The intervention aims at setting “social sustainability” in cities (i.e. the right for local inhabitants to “stay put") in the policy agenda and at drawing attention to the detrimental effects of privatizing public housing stock on low income communities. In Rome, it seems that negotiations started between anti-gentrification resistants/ activists and public authorities. However, no tangible outcomes are so far accessed (this is also related to the fact that AGAPE project is not yet disseminated to policy makers. Due to some constraints, the project is not yet over).

== 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.'''

n/a

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

Anti-gentrification resistors in Rome did not reportedly learn from experiences elsewhere. However, researchers from the AGAPE project learnt from the cases of anti-gentrification resistances in the cities of Rome, Madrid and Athens (AGAPE_05).

=== 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'''

n/a

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

Yes, knowledge was acquired during a workshop organized in the framework of AGAPE. Held at Roma Tre University in Italy in October 2017, the gathering enabled activists from different resistances groups from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece to meet and to exchange about their local experiences of gentrification and their ways to resist it: “activist groups analyzed their campaigns, illustrating the varied experience of evictions and struggles in different states and the potential for cross-border synergies” (AGAPE_05).

Examples included “principles of assembly-ism, horizontalism, and non-party politics” in resistance groups in Spain as well as “their campaign of escraches putting pressure on politicians, and their popular legislative initiatives to change the law regarding evictions by collecting signatures” ; or the “anti-eviction activism through the physical blockade of court proceedings” in Greece(AGAPE_05).

=== 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?'''====

n/a

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

The obstacles (which were not really overcome) contributed to raise awareness especially among policy makers and public actors about the issue of gentrification and its consequences on the local population. This awareness allowed countervailing legal measures to be taken (as mentioned in Q.24).

===='''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.'''====

*Workshops organized in the framework of AGAPE
*Mediated discussions between citizens and policy makers.

== 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]'''

The transferability of the intervention in a core element of AGAPE project. Indeed, the latter aims at issuing an “Anti-gentrification Toolkit for Southern European cities” (AGAPE_05) based on the fieldwork conducted in the three case study cities (including Rome’s experience). The toolkit consists of a framework of prevention, mitigation and civil disobedience experiences which occurred elsewhere. It provides tools and examples of good practices for local communities, activists, and collectives to fight evictions and gentrification. It also addresses policy makers by providing them with concrete ideas. Thus, transferability is central to the project to “provide the basic tools that local communities can draw on to fight gentrification and concrete ideas for policy makers” depending on local contexts.

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

Transferability is primarily suggested in Southern European cities context because it is what the project is about. There is a form of unity in the gentrification process in SECs which is exacerbated by the debt crisis and the consequential austerity behaviors of nation states. Thus, the framework of AGAPE project, including fieldwork, theoretical research, and practical tools against gentrification processes, addresses primarily this particular kind of context. However, according to Prof. Loretta Lees, these learning experiences can apply to any urban context.

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

The claim of transferability is included in the project call and has also been pointed out by the project leader.

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

n/a

===='''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 findings and knowledge resulting from the project will be disseminated to city makers in the form of the Anti-gentrification toolkit.

===='''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”?)'''====

n/a

== 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?

n/a

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

===='''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?'''====

The findings and knowledge resulting from the project will be disseminated to city makers in the form of the Anti-gentrification toolkit.

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy

2021-03-05T10:41:02Z

Sophia McRae:

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

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact info@buerger-energie-berlin.de for more information.
{{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 (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.'''

Energy and Mobility Solutions
Governance and Participation Processes
Co=learning and Knowledge Brokerage

*'''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).
The members who cannot afford that cost are excluded from certain decisions (TESS 5, pg. 31)yet there is the possibility for participation as a volunteer.

*'''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 (TESS 4.pg. 15).
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 is now closer to its goal than ever. In 2019 the "Landesbetrieb Berlin Energie" won the procurement procedure which is a victory on the way to remunicipalisation. After trying to fight this with a lawsuit and even winning its case before the regional court, Vattenfall dropped the lawsuit in 2020, as they fear that the legal process could drag on for years. This opens the possibility for BEB to resume negotiations with the country of Berlin about the operation of the grid. At the moment, the country is negotiating the price of the grid and the subsidiary company of Vattenfall which will influence future involvement of BEB.
The government’s decision on remunicipalisation and Vattenfall’s willingness to sell the energy network favors BEB, although previously, when Vattenfall filed a lawsuit against the government's decision on remunicipalisation, there were high chances of the situation disfavouring BEB. Thus, to stay relevant and for achieving their overarching goal of green electricity production and provision, BEB is reinventing itself and working on numerous other projects including solar energy production.
A BEB representative in an interview stated,
Below are some achievements of the milestones accomplished by BEB:
*its campaigns work, and having started an important discussion on public participation in decisions concerning energy infrastructure.
*Collection of 11 million Euros in 2015 (100 million Euros is target) to buy 25% of the energy grid.
*Increase in the rate of membership (therefore funding too), campaigns sponsorships, number of volunteers and media attention are the biggest achievements of BE.
Success in the future would mean to be a shareholder of the energy grid in Berlin or at a cooperation partner, supplying renewable energy (TESS 5, pg. 16).

== 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.

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy

2021-03-05T10:40:33Z

Sophia McRae:

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

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact info(at)buerger-energie-berlin.de for more information.
{{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 (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.'''

Energy and Mobility Solutions
Governance and Participation Processes
Co=learning and Knowledge Brokerage

*'''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).
The members who cannot afford that cost are excluded from certain decisions (TESS 5, pg. 31)yet there is the possibility for participation as a volunteer.

*'''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 (TESS 4.pg. 15).
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 is now closer to its goal than ever. In 2019 the "Landesbetrieb Berlin Energie" won the procurement procedure which is a victory on the way to remunicipalisation. After trying to fight this with a lawsuit and even winning its case before the regional court, Vattenfall dropped the lawsuit in 2020, as they fear that the legal process could drag on for years. This opens the possibility for BEB to resume negotiations with the country of Berlin about the operation of the grid. At the moment, the country is negotiating the price of the grid and the subsidiary company of Vattenfall which will influence future involvement of BEB.
The government’s decision on remunicipalisation and Vattenfall’s willingness to sell the energy network favors BEB, although previously, when Vattenfall filed a lawsuit against the government's decision on remunicipalisation, there were high chances of the situation disfavouring BEB. Thus, to stay relevant and for achieving their overarching goal of green electricity production and provision, BEB is reinventing itself and working on numerous other projects including solar energy production.
A BEB representative in an interview stated,
Below are some achievements of the milestones accomplished by BEB:
*its campaigns work, and having started an important discussion on public participation in decisions concerning energy infrastructure.
*Collection of 11 million Euros in 2015 (100 million Euros is target) to buy 25% of the energy grid.
*Increase in the rate of membership (therefore funding too), campaigns sponsorships, number of volunteers and media attention are the biggest achievements of BE.
Success in the future would mean to be a shareholder of the energy grid in Berlin or at a cooperation partner, supplying renewable energy (TESS 5, pg. 16).

== 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.

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens

2021-03-05T10:37:37Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take look at [[Bringing sustainable infrastructure - carefully engaging in public-private partnerships]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact Panagiota Kotsila for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

The intervention refers to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (SNFCC) and takes place in the city of Athens, Greece. The cultural center is an urban regeneration project established in the framework of a private-public partnership. It hosts two major cultural institutions and includes a park. The overall infrastructure is sustainable and based on nature based solutions.

The intervention has been developed at the scale of a neighborhood in a capital city (Athens).

==='''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.]'''===

The intervention has been developed for the urban development policy field as well as cultural development.

==='''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]'''===

The project addresses both issues of social justice and sustainability. However, social justice is not directly mentioned but is rather framed as broader access to cultural facilities and environmental amenities. The first refers to the access to the two cultural institutions hosted in the center i.e. the Greek National Library and the Greek Opera. In addition, the SNFCC offers a free set of activities such as yoga classes or music workshops: “the project is committed to a range of educational and cultural activities, which have been provided for free” (Naturvation’s webpage). Environmental amenities refers to the large park, which contributes to the health and the well-being of the local population.

From the perspective of the SNFCC, the intervention addresses social justice by being inclusive. Inclusiveness includes the access to the facilities for mobility-reduced visitors and the activities free-of-charge. The intervention also aims at improving the quality of life of the local community “with clean air, exercise facilities and twice as much green space” (Naturvation_04: 2).

Sustainability achievements refer to the sustainable construction and design of the SNFCC, which is LEED (i.e. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified (an internationally recognized certification). The building has a recycled water system, a green roof, and solar panels. The park is designed in a way that is conservative with water usage and adapted to the local climate (i.e. with Mediterranean plants for instance). The expected impacts include “sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12)” as well as “green space, habitat and biodiversity (SDG 15)" (Naturvation’s webpage). At the scale of the neighborhood, the intervention addresses environmental health issues, as it was built on a formerly degraded area (interview with P.). Scaling up, the intervention is a response major sustainability challenges in Athens, namely high rates of air pollution due to the heat island effect and limited green spaces, as Athens has the lowest per capita green space among the EU cities (Naturvation_05: 2).

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

The project started in 2009 and was finalized in 2016.

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

The intervention is characterized by a co-governance of hybrid governance model (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors), between private actors (i.e. the SNF) and public actors (i.e. the Greek State).

==='''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 intervention is interesting because it shows an example of public-private partnership (PPP) adapted to a very particular context i.e. a period of economical crisis and austerity (which obviously raises concerns about sustainability and social justice). This governance intervention was radically shaped by this context.

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

*SNFCC’s case in Naturavtion’s Atlas: https://naturvation.eu/nbs/athens/stavros-niarchos-foundation-cultural-center-snfcc
*Snapshot - Athens: Stavros Niarchos Cultural center. Coded in Zotero (Naturvation_05)
*SNFCC Impact Study (from the SNFCC). Coded in Zotero (Naturvation_04)
*Interview with Panagiota Kotsila (UAB team) on 06/04/20.

== 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).'''

The intervention has been studied in the framework of a EU-funded project called NATURVATION (2016-20).<ref>Naturvation website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://naturvation.eu/.</ref> The project focuses on nature-based solutions (NBS) that are applied and implemented in urban contexts and aims at identifying how NSB governance and innovation can address urban sustainability challenges.

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Nature-based solutions | Nature-based solutions]] approach. However, only the overall project (i.e. Naturvation) is mentioned, not the intervention itself.

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

Some deliverables of Naturvation’s project have been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4. However, none of these deliverables refer to SNFCC’s case.

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

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

From the perspective of the SNF, inequality and exclusion has been problematized in terms of:
*Inclusion and accessibility . The SNFCC offers very low entry fees (compared to other cultural attractions) and free-of-charge activities (Naturvation_04: 13). The SNFCC is accessible for people with special needs (disabilities).
*Improving the quality of life for the local community. This includes: improving the appearance and attractiveness of the areas, increasing the access to green amenities, enhancing local businesses, providing health benefits (cleaner air and offering opportunities for exercise), making the neighborhood safer (Naturvation_04: 35-41).

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

From the perspective of the SNF, justice is understood in terms of citizens’ well-being and welfare. In that sense, it is one motivation among others behind the intervention.

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The intervention was initiated by a private actor, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF), who came to the Greek State and proposed to build the cultural center. The SNF is a nonprofit foundation held by a very rich family of ship owners in Greece (the foundation does mainly charity works and operates in Greece and internationally). However, this project has a longer history that involves various actors (see Q. 17)

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

The envisioned benefiters of the intervention are: the public sector institution (e.g. school or hospital); non-government organization/civil society ; private sector/corporate/company; citizens or community groups (based on the list provided in Naturavation webpage).

It seems more generally that the intervention will benefit Athenian visitors, because of the cultural activities offered by the center. To some extent, the intervention also benefits the Greek population. At a time when the country was facing a financial and austerity crisis that deteriorated its international image, the center can be a source of national pride and international recognition (i.e. the cultural center seek to be a “global role model of environmental sustainability and also to contribute to the valorization of Greek culture and heritage).

==='''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
| X
| The Stravos Niarchos company (SNF CC SA)
the Greek National Opera (public)

|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Maires of municipalities surrounding the area
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
| X
| the Greek State (i.e. represented by the ministries of education, of cultural and of the economy)
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| (nonprofit) the Greek National Library (Public)
(nonprofit) the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) (private)

|}

==='''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 intervention could emerge successfully because the SNF came to the state with a project already set-up (i.e. the configuration, the design, and also the PPP), to which the Greek State only had to agree. The State - weakened by the crisis at this time - did not call for tender but was offered a predefined project. In that sense, the intervention emerged because it was one-sided. In addition, the SNF benefited from the support of the National Opera and the National Library that requested the foundation for help to relocate. Thus, the SNF came to the Greek State with a strong proposal and offered a lot of money at a time when the Greek state was sorely lacking it.

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

The SNFCC is a top-down intervention since “the conceptualization, design, type of uses and technical execution of the whole SNFCC project were top-down” and driven by the SNF (Naturvation’s webpage). There was no kind of participatory process that included citizens in the decisionmaking. From the SNF’s perspective, a sort of participation was conceptualized ex-ante. Visitors or citizens could individually raise some claims by writing an email to the foundation on a dedicated platform. In addition, information days were organized during the construction where people could come and get informed about what was happening there.

A public committee - composed of the maires representatives of the state as well as the ministers of culture, education and finances - was held from the beginning towards the end of the project to discuss what was happening. However, the role of the committee was only consultative, rather than contributing signficantly to the decision-making.

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

The SNF was the main decision-maker of the project. It conceptualized the whole approach while the Greek State had only to agree on that project and to sign the law that enforced this Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The SNF was responsible for the whole vision and decision-making of the conceptualisation, design, and technical execution of the cultural center. In addition, the SNF pre-decided a list of companies that were to be contracted to build and further maintain the center after its completion. Then, the cultural center was donated to the Greek State which under the supervision of the Ministry of Finances (Naturvation’s webpage) undertook full responsibility.

The cultural center is composed of three organizations. Two of them are hosted there, the National Library and the National Opera, and the third is a management company called the SNFCC SA that was created by the foundation and donated to the State. It belongs now to the Ministry of Finances,
although the executive team (circa 40 employees) works as if it was under private supervision of the SNFCC.

Decision-making power is centralized by the SNF. The State and the two national institutions hosted there lost a significant part of their autonomy because they are bound to the law (i.e. the PPP) that gave great powers to the SNF. They do not have the agency to choose how to manage the place nor to choose the companies they will hire or choose how to spend their money. If the State and the public institution do not comply with these rules, the foundation will legally withdraw the amount of money they donated (under-conditions of compliance with these rules) and the State will have to pay it all back (interview with P.).

It appears that despite the public-private nature of the project (due to the co-ownership between the Greek state and the SNF), the cultural center is rather privately managed, which prevents any kind of “bottom-up or self-managed activities” (Naturvation_05: 4).

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

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

Exclusion occurred during the conceptualization of the project and after its completion. First, the shaping of the intervention was centralized by the SNF and excluded citizens (there were no participatory process nor public consultation) as well as a set of companies that could have engaged with the project (in the conceptualization phase, the construction, or the maintenance). Since the SNF decided its collaborators in advance, lots of public and private actors (i.e. architecture, construction, maintenance companies) were excluded: “ there has been no active consultation and engagement involving end-users in defining the project and subsequently monitoring service quality” (Naturvation_05: 4).

Second, exclusions occurred after the completion of the center and targets visitors of the center.
*Exclusion in terms of accessibility: because it is not located in the city center of Athens and is not connected to it with a metro line, the center is not so easy to access, especially for people without a vehicle (i.e. students, elderly) (there is a parking lot but not free of charges).
*Class-based/financial exclusion. The Opera had increased the price of its ticket (to cover the cost of the rent due to the foundation). This also raised the question of who is able to pay for going to Opera in Greece at a moment of crisis? The cafés and restaurants of the cultural center have been contracted by the SNF and are a bit pricier than any kind of neighborhood cafés. In addition, a membership card, for which one pays a certain fee, gives members the possibility to have cheaper parking rates, to reserve places for the free activities, and thus to enjoy more activities offered by the center.
*Public/private indirect exclusion. The cultural center and the park are public but are privately managed i.e. private guards are surveilling the park rather than municipal officers. This means that visitors do not know who defines the rules in those premises. This is a form of indirect exclusion (interview with P.)

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

Some measures have been taken to involve more citizens. Since 2013, this included the possibility for citizens “to view the construction site and learn about the SNFCC scope, organization and future plan”. However, this is only information and has not to be mistaken with effective public participation. The document underlines that “public participation and citizen engagement for transparency and promotion of the public interest are hard to achieve in privately initiated NBS” (Naturavation_05: 4).

== 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 context of the financial crisis, resulting austerity measures, and project development shaped the intervention. First, the project is built on a long history related to the place where it is set-up. The area was formerly a horse racing track, which then hosted the Olympic Games in 2004 and was abandoned afterwards. Local inhabitants asked the municipalities to turn it into a public green space. Before the crisis hit, the State promised that a public park would be created in that area, but after 2008-09 the project failed. At this time, the National Opera and the National Library requested SNF for support for their facilities, even for relocation. Then, the SNF came to the state with a project that would somehow meet both the residents' requests (i.e. to do something with this abandoned place and to provide green amenities) and the request of the two institutions.

In addition, the context of economic crisis, austerity, and environmental challenges (air pollution, degraded area), and with intention to restore the Greek image through cultural valorization (Naturvation’s website), the creation of a sustainable and innovative center hosting two major cultural institutions was positively welcomed by citizens. The project developed under the circumstances in which the Greek State, weakened by the economical crisis and austerity, was not able to pay for any alternative project or even to be proactive to make a call for tenders. The intervention only became possible by the establishment of a public-private partnership (PPP) designed by the SNF.

==='''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]])'''===

The establishment of a public-private partnership (PPP) made possible the intervention to emerge. The scheme - as a kind of a loop - is the following: "the state provides the land, the private entity makes the construction and the state manages its functioning” (Naturvation_05: 3). This PPP was formalized in a signed agreement - a law - between the Greek State and the SNFCC foundation, which has been ratified by the Greek parliament (Law 3785-2009) (Naturvation’s webpage). The agreement entails that the state has to fulfill the agreed upon terms and conditions (i.e. especially regarding the selected collaborators) or the donor has the right to withdraw its donation. The two institutions hosted by the SNFCC remained autonomous but endorsed new financial responsibilities and did not have the agency to manage the building facilities.

==='''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 law defining the PPP is a presidential decree that has been ratified by the Greek parliament. Practically, the PPP has been conceptualized by the legal team of the foundation and submitted to the Greek government who accordingly issued a decree.

==='''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.)'''===

The intervention occurred at a moment of despair, mistrust, and disillusionment from the citizens towards the Greek State. Local inhabitants had been waiting for a long time for something to be done with this degraded area and the State had not had the capacity to do anything. The donors appeared, proposing to pay for building something for the people. It undertook a providential figure, which matches the philanthropic and well-known image of the Niarchos family and foundation: “Ok so the State is not able to do anything so we need some rich man to come and save us.” (Interview with P.)

“I think it can cut people, and the state as well and the government as well, in a weak moment where it's like, somebody is willing to give us money actually when everybody wants to take money away from us. Because at that moment with the debt, everybody was losing their salaries, their retirements. Then a big donator comes and says: 'ok, I'm going to throw millions of euros to make something for you'" (interview with P.).

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

The financial agreement is the following; the state provided the land (public property), the SNFCC foundation covered the all the cost for designing and building the center (private funds) and then donated it (under conditions) to the state, which controls its functioning and management by the complex SNFCC SA (publicly run). However, the viability of the project depends on the capacity of the state to cover the high running cost of the structure. The money comes respectively from “the parking lot and the renting of cafés and restaurants, and of other spaces for events” as well as the fees (rent or/and “management fees") paid to the SNFCC SA by the Greek National Library and the Greek National Opera for being hosted by the center (only the the latter is a profit-organization) (Naturvation_05: 3).

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

n/a

'''''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'''

The potential obstacle could have been the legal framework because this particular PPP is a form of “donation under-condition," which is quite specific and might oppose some juridical principle (regarding State autonomy for instance). However, the legal team of the foundation conceptualized this legal agreement and dealt with any potential obstacles related to its complexity.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

n/a

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

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

n/a

== 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?
|-
| The complexity of the legal agreement (the PPP)
| The legal team of the foundation established the agreement and submitted ready-made to the State
|
|}

== 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.'''===

The positive outcomes are:
*The new facilities for the National Library and the National Opera
*The park that provides green amenities, especially for local residents
*Overall, the cultural center is quite busy and people come to it

However, the project raised concerns about:
*Lost autonomy of the State and the two institutions that are hosted there. They have no agency to choose how to manage the building and have to comply with the terms set-up by the foundation.
*“Cultural appropriation” (interview with P.). The way that the place is promoted and marketed tends to symbolically privatize public properties and institutions. For instance, many Athenians say that they go to the Niarchos Center or Niarchos Library although the National Library is a cultural heritage that belongs to the State and does not belong to the Niarchos family and foundation.
*Gentrification. Just after the project was announced, speculation started in the area and the prices in the neighboring municipalities have arisen to 20% in the last five years, which is one of the highest percentages in Athens. This gentrification is related to culture and green amenities.
*Financial risk for the state. The State is taking financial risk from the moment it undertook the responsibility of running the center after it's completion. The center was extremely expensive to build (sustainable and innovative design and huge area covered) but is also very expensive to maintain because the selected companies contracted by the SNF are mostly above the market prices. At the same time, the State is bound to the agreement signed with the foundation and is responsible for the financial viability of the project. In case of economic fail or bankruptcy, it would be the State debt and taxpayer money that will pay for it.

== 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.'''

n/a

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

n/a

=== 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'''

The foundation is an international foundation that has experience in the management of different kinds of PPP. The legal team most likely has some experience in establishing some sorts of PPP.

Concerning the construction of the building, Renzo Piano, the architect hired by the foundation, is one of the top names in sustainable construction. The SNFCC was inspired by other international large-scale certificated LEED Platinum (including the Water+Life Museum, USA; Clinton Presidential Library, USA; Vestas Technology Center, Denmark; Taipei 101, Taiwan; Park Ventures, Thailand) (Naturvation_04: 46). The intervention is then a matter of elite expertise and know-how, though it did happen as a closed process.

Overall, both regarding the PPP procedure and the construction, it seems that the foundation operated on its own with its own resources and knowledge without necessarily involving the municipality: “I don't think there was a lot of back and forth with the local authorities” (Interview with P.).

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

n/a

=== 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?'''===

Nothing about governance arrangements.

However, regarding sustainable construction, the infrastructure has been adapted to the local context i.e. a Mediterranean environment. For instance, the park is landscaped with plants specifically adapted to the Mediterranean climate (e.g. do not require a lot of water) (interview with p.).

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

There was not really a learning process since the potential obstacle (i.e. the legal complexity of the PPP agreement) was overcome internally by the foundation.

==='''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.'''===

Importing knowledge by employing people specifically qualified and recognized in the field (of sustainable construction).

== 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]'''

The potential of the project is to launch a dynamic of innovation in the area and to pledge local actors to consider the PPP.

From the perspective of the SNF, the SNFCC is “a role model of environmental sustainability across 3 dimensions: environmentally friendly design and construction, environmentally friendly operations, biodiversity & local ecosystem enhancement” and achieved a LEED Platinum certification (i.e. a sustainable label (Naturvation_04: 44). However, nothing is mentioned about transferability of the project. What is a “global role model”? Is that only inspirational?

Replicability however is mentioned in relation with the type of PPP: “SNFCC can serve as a model for future cooperation between public & private initiative in similar projects” (Naturvation_04: 65).

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

The context is not specified. This could take place in any major city (capable of hosting such big cultural institutions).

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

The claim of transferring the model of PPP is made by the SNF.

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

The prerequisite of establishing such a project (including the use of innovative techniques) is to find private funds (Naturvation_05: 4). However, the document highlights that “this prerequisite (generous funds from a private actor) is however not easily replicated in other projects”.

In addition, concerns have been raised regarding the risks and the loss of autonomy of the Greek State. It seem this kind of governance arrangement will not occur in a city or country having a robust or healthy financial situation because no public actor will accept the terms offered by the foundation: “I think that the fact that it happened in Greece in a moment of crisis was very key to the way things happen” (Interview with P.).

==='''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> '''===

n/a

==='''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”?)'''===

“Neighbouring municipalities have started to explore ways of capitalizing on the new project (the SNFCC) to attract development funding” (Naturvation_05: 4).

== 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?

n/a

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

For the researcher that studies the project, it is important to highlight that it is a donation under non-negotiable legal terms. It is a very special form of PPP: “it's like a kind of temporary or a donation but a final outcome of state responsibility” (interview with P.).

'''Have questions or comments? Contact information regarding this case can be found at the top of this page!'''

== 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]]

Develop resilient, and self-sufficient financing arrangements

2021-03-05T10:32:55Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRS1Fwq5uaM</embedvideo>

[[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|600x600x|thumb|Develop Resilient and Self-Sufficient Financing Arrangements]]

== The ambition ==

Many community-led initiatives for sustainable and just cities rely on public funding (subsidies, grants etc) to carry out their activities. But changing political priorities and economic crises can restrict this funding. Developing a financial arrangement that contains a well thought-out value proposition, delivery, and capture, as well as considering the model’s risks, such as being tied to single sources of funding, will make them more resilient in the face of austerity. However, this is no easy task, since many of community-led projects serve low-income residents and cannot rely on them to finance it. Additionally, since funding sources and business models (often) also reflect the values of the organization using them, community-led organizations and projects may have to think carefully about accepting funding from bigger institutions, as it potentially may conflict with their own political views and environmental and societal goals. But high quality interventions can also be relatively low-cost, both in start-up costs or in upkeep, which reduces risk of investment without reducing potential positive impact.

== Examples ==

''' ''Repowering'', London'''

Inner-city community energy in London: After the steep decline and cancellation of the FIT subsidy for community energy, Repowering sought out alternatives such as private investment and conducted pilot projects for a peer-to-peer energy trading system [[Inner-city community energy in London#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.)|(Q24)]]. Repowering took measures to reduce exclusion of low-income residents and energy beneficiaries by keeping the threshold investment for members relatively low, around £50. By making the project more inclusive with low barriers to entry, community workshops, and open general meetings, they were also able to increase their community basis and strengthen their community funding sources. They also created a Community Energy Efficiency fund for non-investors, further increasing alternative revenue streams [[Inner-city community energy in London#16. Exclusion:|(Q16b)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Inner-city community energy in London]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]

''' ''Foodsharing'', Berlin'''

Foodsharing is run by unpaid volunteers, including developers, foodshares and foodsavers and refuses any public funding or subsidies. Relying on their own ressources is part of the political line of the organization as it tries to operate without financial transaction. Foodsharing members promote the “free”.

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Tackling Waste: Community Practices for Food Rescuing and Sharing]]

''' ''Community Land Trust'', Brussels'''

Community-led affordable housing in Brussels: Although CLTB faces obstacles in growing their budget in tandem with their organization, their revenue streams are highly diverse and thus could be resilient enough to maintain stability if one funding source dries up. While 40% of their budget relies on government subsidies, the other 60% comes from a variety of grants, household mortgages, membership fees, ground leases, crowdfunding, and donations [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?|(Q21)]]. Importantly, CLTB launched the cooperative '''“Common Ground”''' [https://www.credal.be/actualites/la-cooperative-common-ground-brussels-est-nee] in January 2021, which partners with the social economy sector to attract private and citizen finance for land purchases and management under the CLT model. Finally, the CLTB’s first project was their pilot, but with a business model proven successful they can be eligible for additional, long-term support.

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]]

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

Superblocks in Barcelona: The Superblocks interventions are seen as a relatively low-cost, high-impact initiative [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.|(Q25)]]. The highest expenditures were attributed to upfront costs for construction and reworking city transport, with little additional costs for maintenance. Furthermore, because the Superblocks project is embedded in many other sustainability and development plans in Barcelona, their funding source is relatively secure [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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:|(Q26a)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]]

For interesting examples of business models for Nature Based Solutions, see the '''NATURVATION project’s Business Model Catalogue''' [https://naturvation.eu/sites/default/files/results/content/files/business_model_catalogue.pdf].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Developing resilient and self-sufficient financial arrangements for urban sustainability and justice initiatives may address the consequences of [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]], a driver of injustice previously explored by UrbanA. This refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors. While this arrangement does not address the root causes of neoliberal austerity urbanism, it may lessen its impact on urban sustainability and justice by enabling initiatives to remain financially viable and therefore to continue their operations. However, special care will need to be taken to ensure that these financial schemes do not exclude low-income groups who cannot afford to pay for the benefits of the initiative themselves and are of little relevance to potential sponsors.

== Critical reflection ==

While developing a financial arrangement that is able to remain viable amongst public funding cuts and other ripple effects of economic crises may make an initiative more resilient and therefore able to continue delivering its benefits to communities, it may set a precedent for underfunding similar initiatives, thus downplaying responsibility for collective welfare. In other words, public authorities may be tempted to limit public funding and support in the future if they see that organizations can “make it on their own”. This could in turn reinforce the driver of injustice which the arrangement is trying to circumnavigate. There is also a risk that projects in low-income communities cannot afford to financially support initiatives nor gain the necessary start-up investment if the project is untested. Community members may be hesitant to invest in a project without a sense of trust that they will receive a return-on-investment.

== Examples ==

''' ''Repowering'', London'''

Inner-city community energy in London: One notable obstacle was the difficulty raising funds (£58,000) for BES1 from community members. Since it was a new project, with no track record, individuals were hesitant to invest. Additionally, while many made pledges, this proved not to be a reliable indicator of actual financial support. Once BES1 was established, it was easier to find investors for the others because the community had more trust in the organization and had seen an instance of success [[Inner-city community energy in London#23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:|(Q23d)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Inner-city community energy in London]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

The Covid-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of developing resilient financial arrangements for any initiative. In such a crisis, sources of funding are directed to new immediate priorities, such as health care and social supports, meanwhile governments around the world wrack up huge debts. In the long-run economic recovery stimulus may be positive for urban sustainability and justice initiatives if it is directed towards a just green recovery (check out Carbon Brief’s tracking of '''green recovery plans''' [https://www.carbonbrief.org/coronavirus-tracking-how-the-worlds-green-recovery-plans-aim-to-cut-emissions]).

Tap into existing community networks

2021-03-05T10:32:26Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://youtu.be/OEHRKECRX_U</embedvideo>

[[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|600x600x|thumb|Tap into Existing Community Networks]]

== General ambition ==

Emerging initiatives need to ensure they connect to and learn from existing community networks that are working on similar issues. This can involve the sharing of (human) resources, learning from individuals from community initiatives elsewhere, and knowledge sharing about organizational structures, problem solving, and electronic tools. Consulting experts in the field could also be important here, especially in the beginning of a project. It can also be helpful for initiatives to tap into networks that have experience in similarly structured interventions or share a common ideology. Beyond learning outcomes, this could provide an integral basis of support for emerging projects.

Learning from other communities can support emerging initiatives with the resources and expertise to increase their legitimacy and gain political and public support. There is also much to gain for organizations to teach others: sharing knowledge with newer projects strengthens networks within and between communities, bolsters an organization’s reputation and legitimacy, and offers opportunities for additional organizational support.

== Examples ==

''' ''Foodsharing'', Berlin'''

Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin: Foodsharing groups tapped into the resources of the national network to develop locally, especially they used the same online platform as well as the same principles and organizational structure. Social resources were also used to gain legitimacy as Foodsharing is well known in the food sector. This helped regional groups to develop partnerships with food retailers of supermarkets or possibly to gain support from local institutional actors, such as community centers, as hosts for public fridges [[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin#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.|(Q13)]]. Moreover, Foodsharing was able to successfully become established in Berlin because there was already a thriving sharing economy in the city [[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin#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:|(Q26a)]]. Tapping into communities engaged in sharing economies for services, mobility, clothing, etc. provided the adequate public engagement foodsharing needs. Lastly, Foodsharing has been able to extend beyond its organizational network to support initiatives starting up elsewhere. The group YUnity originates from Foodsharing and develops online platforms and tools that enable others to start their own food sharing network [[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin#31. Suggestions regarding transferability.|(Q31a)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Citizens rescuing and sharing food in Berlin]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Tackling Waste: Community Practices for Food Rescuing and Sharing]]

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freiburg'''

Housing Cooperative Networks in Germany inspired to some extent project proponents. Specifically, they benefited from the expertise of the cooperative confederation regarding economy, law and tax policy [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?|(Q26b & Q27b)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]

''' ''Community Land Trust'', Brussels'''

The ability of many (15) community associations to self-organize and present a united appeal for the establishment of the CLTB was very important for the intervention’s emergence. Additionally, CLTB learned from experiences in experiments for alternative affordable housing in and outside of Brussels [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#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:|(Q26)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]]

''' ''Bürgen Energie Berlin'', Berlin'''

BEB is supported by a large number of alliances including cooperatives, ethical banks and renewable energy companies. The cooperative expanded fast 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. Whereas, in order to reach out to people and inform them about the cooperative they worked together with the media, a network summit called “NetzGipfel”, and took part in demonstrations and other events to inform people about their initiative and to get more participants.

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 [[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]]

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

Superblocks in Barcelona: The Urban Ecology Agency is led by Superblocks visionaire Salvador Rueda, and was an important source of expertise in designing and implementing this project in Barcelona [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?|(Q15)]]. The City Council also engaged multiple community networks through the creation of neighborhood working groups [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. Local residents and stakeholders were important representatives. Their participation supported the design of individual Superblocks with respect to the neighborhood’s character and was critical for gaining public support of the project.

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]]

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

This enabling governance arrangement tries to overcome injustices caused mostly by the [[Weak(ened) civil society]] and [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]] as well as [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].

Weak(ened) civil society as a driver of injustice 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. Tapping into resources of existing community networks can reinforce and strengthen the organization and help access the benefit of sustainability efforts. Beside, forming alliances with other movements increases legitimacy as well as (generally) public support which helps to overcome regulatory or political barriers.

Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities as a driver of injustice 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 social groups, sectors or disciplines and thus constrain the potential for both sustainability and justice. Tapping into resources of existing community networks includes sharing information and skills. It allows grassroot groups to stay informed and to learn about sustainability urban interventions and increases opportunities to engage and benefit from them.

Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism as a driver of injustice 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. Creating alliances with other community networks can provide grassroot initiatives with resources (human, financial or organizational) from which they are deprived. However, in this context, relying on internal community resources may be at risk of reinforcing the roll back of the state, that is, the delegation of regalian responsibilities to citizens and to voluntarily-run organizations.

This enabling governance arrangement is also related to the approach of [[Co-learning and knowledge brokerage]] as it aims to facilitate the circulation of ideas, understandings and cutting-edge research across a diverse set of actors in society.

== Critical reflection ==

Connecting closely to already existing initiatives may deprive newly emerging initiatives of their distinctive and innovative character and may limit their appeal to particular social groups.
Another downside of this enabling governance arrangement is that it may contribute to a roll-back of the state. Strong community networks operating in a certain domain (food, housing etc.) can alleviate state deficiencies. As far as they In replace the state in its responsibility to organize the provision e.g. of sufficient food or housing, such initiatives may be instrumentalized in line with a neoliberal logic by compensating or even fostering a roll-back of the state. This relates to the driver of injustice: [[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. Also, it cannot be assumed that initiatives are willing to share their information or novel expertise if they perceive others as potential “competitors” (for public funding, participants, etc.).
Furthermore, since many initiatives for sustainable and just cities are unique “trailblazers”, the advice from other community groups may be limited. Much of the learning has to still come from the context of the initiative itself.

==Examples==

''' ''Repowering'', London'''

Inner-city community energy in London: As a pioneer organization, Repowering offers professional services such as legal, structural, financial, and marketing aid, to other upcoming community energy projects. However, there is an ongoing internal debate regarding what information Repowering is willing to open-source and what they maintain as exclusive expertise that should be protected [[Inner-city community energy in London#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?|(Q32)]]. Furthermore, Repowering had limited expertise to draw from in the sector and therefore had to learn through the process of innovation. From an interview: “It wasn't like we got an answer from other people and they helped us out. It was the other way around. We trail-blazed the whole sector" (Interview with Otero) [[Inner-city community energy in London#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:|(Q26)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Inner-city community energy in London]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

In the context of the pandemic, some public institutions engaged in supporting a variety of economic sectors but did not provide adequate assistance in many social sectors. Civil-society organizations have complemented deficiencies in public social assistance especially in the sector of food and housing by providing meals or temporarily housing for those in need. Tapping into resources of existing community networks provides such emerging local initiatives with ‘internal’ resources (i.e. as internal to the community) that the public sector is unable to provide them with. This support allows community groups to survive and pursue sustainability and justice goals in cities in a context of selective governmental interventions.

Commit to a meaningful participation process

2021-03-05T10:32:01Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gdMhQ52XA</embedvideo>

[[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|600x600x|thumb|Commit to a Meaningful Participation Process]]

== General ambition ==

Meaningful participation means that citizens’ inputs are seriously considered in inclusive design and governance processes, that they visibly shape initiatives’ outcomes, and thus can influence the status quo in urban sustainability and justice. Such a process is also cognisant of who is invited and capable of participating, since otherwise it runs the risk of becoming a further driver of injustice. Committing to a meaningful participation process is important for both municipality-led and community-led initiatives. Depending on the topic, meaningful participation might mean something different. For mostly technical topics (e.g the building of a Storm-water system), the goal of a meaningful participation process could be to create a dialogue with residents to give the possibility for expressing potential doubts and misconceptions. This might then offer the opportunity and resources for residents tobe made co-responsible for other aspects of the project. Participation processes have to be aware that engagement might decline over time if no physical outcomes of the participation can be seen in the area. Additionally, institutions have to commit long-term to the process in order to build up trust and give residents the belief that their own time and energy investment is not wasted but is part of a long-term vision to change the area positively.

#'''On the side of municipalities''': Municipal actors need to acknowledge and embrace the value of citizen participation in project development and trust civil-society in visioning and implementing projects. This type of collaborative governance entails a clear definition of roles and responsibilities and could even mean seeing each other as equally legitimate to engage in the project as partners (e.g. between municipal actors and citizens).
#'''On the side of civil society''': Committing to a meaningful participation process in bottom-up initiatives can also entail a thoughtful mix of deliberative and practical approaches to citizen participation. Practical, ‘hands on’ participation opportunities can help make projects more inclusive as they allow for people from diverse backgrounds to contribute. Public participation in the form of volunteering can be crucial for the initiative’s operation and legitimacy.

== Examples ==

''1. On the side of municipality''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freiburg '''

The citizen-led Vauban Forum was invited to participate in the “Vauban city planning council” (a consultative committee within the city council) which indicates that the municipality recognizes citizens as legitimate partners in the project development [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?|(Q15 & Q22)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development'', Augustenborg'''

In Augustenborg, 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. Some aspects of the project were co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. In total, approximately, approximately 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 [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].
Key here was to strike 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) [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg#23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:|(Q23)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]

''2. On the side of civil society''

''' ''Repowering'', London'''

Citizens have been the founders and drivers of the intervention from the very beginning. The intervention’s cooperative structure relies upon community engagement in order to function (financial investment, regular meetings, decision-making etc.) and the intervention engages with a wider community base in order to address energy poverty and provide opportunities for employment and learning [[Inner-city community energy in London#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. Additionally, further consultation with local residents informed the initiative’s problem definition (deliberative approach), and hands-on involvement (practical approach) in the creation of solar panels and internships led to increased interest and participation [[Inner-city community energy in London#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.)|(Q24)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Inner-city community energy in London]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]

''' ''Community Land Trust'', Brussels'''

Future building residents are essential actors in the planning process. From a very early stage they are central in visioning and realizing the creation of their future community land trust home. Furthermore, residents make up one third of the Trust’s board members [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q.14)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]]

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

To make the project more inclusive, project proponents developed two types of participation methods and invited residents to engage in a more deliberative one (e.g. visioning the district) and more practical one (e.g. developing activities in the community center and community garden).

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]]

''' ''Büger Energie Berlin'', Berlin'''

BEB would not have been able to establish and grow the way it did without the contribution of volunteers. Most are students, mainly graduates from the field of renewable energies, but there are also retirees who want to use their free time to help the cooperative.
According to an interviewee,
“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 [...] 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”.

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 [[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]]

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Committing to a meaningful participation process should help overcome one driver of injustice previously explored by UrbanA, [[Limited citizen participation in urban planning]]. This 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.
By increasing the opportunity for serious consideration of citizens’ needs and desires, as well as providing the chance to take an active part in shaping initiatives, the status quo of urban sustainability and injustice can be called into question. This also means reducing barriers to participation for specific marginalized groups, such as single parents or low income individuals, by providing childcare options or some form of financial compensation for their time. This effort can help increase procedural and representational justice in urban sustainability governance.

== Critical reflection ==

Participation processes can be a driver of injustice if they are not planned very carefully to foster inclusivity, but are, for example, ignorant of who is invited and capable of participating. Participation can be reliant on the capacity of citizens to self-organize and advocate for their interests. If participatory processes do not include marginalized voices and their priorities, outcomes will not be socially just. In some cases, participation is reliant on the capacity of citizens to self-organize and advocate for their interests From a logistical perspective, meaningful participation processes can be costly and time intensive, and therefore not feasible for initiatives with limited financial resources.
In a required participatory society, the need to organise participatory processes can risk risk placing extra burden on those who take part and shift responsibilities from the public to private realms, especially if municipalities do not have the ressources to organise such processes themselves.

==Examples==

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freiburg '''

In Vauban, housing was primarily accessible to homeowners rather than to tenants. Indeed, about 76% of the district is dedicated to homeowners (including cooperatives). However, becoming an owner is not accessible to everyone because it entails very high entry costs. Additionally, building one's own house takes a lot of time (at least 5 years), which not everybody can afford [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

The Resilience Lab took place in the context of withdrawal of the state welfare structures and financial support by redirecting the responsibility to the local inhabitants and citizens. In that sense, the Resilience Lab is a solution given the context of a required “participatory society” [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#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.)|(Q20)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]]

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under Covid-19, in-person activities have been severely restricted, which naturally limits participation processes. While online methods such as participation apps, surveys, and video conferencing may be able to make up for some of the loss, and possibly make participation more accessible for some, like for example, mobility-impaired individuals, the lack of in-person gatherings makes meaningful and truly inclusive participation processes more challenging. This is especially true for participatory initiatives which include, and/or rely on, collective in-person involvement from volunteers.

Build bridges between separate stakeholder groups

2021-03-05T10:31:15Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw</embedvideo>

[[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Build Bridges between Separate Stakeholder Groups]]

== General ambition ==

Metaphorically building bridges between separate groups of stakeholders often requires the establishment of formal or informal roles (institutionalisation) for individuals or organisations to intermediate, broker information and translate language between different stakeholders of a project. Such “intermediaries” play a crucial role by translating and enabling communication e.g. between civil society groups and governmental actors in order to realize a joint project. They have to be recognised in a way that both civil society groups and institutional/municipal actors feel heard and valued and thus build trust in stakeholders which follow different rationales and have developed different cultures of interaction. More important than how exactly the intermediary operates is its function, which at its core is often about enabling communication and furthering democratic participation on a decentralised, local level. Therefore an intermediary can be of different nature e.g a single project manager, a committee/platform, an open-meeting space, a dedicated organisation or even a well respected community member. In some cases, like in the fourth example below from London, local governments can also serve and work as an intermediary between different stakeholders. Such bridging roles are not exclusively found between institutional actors and citizens. Connecting/ translating language/ and intermediating between interests of different departments within a municipality can be equally important (to break up ‘silos’ or to counter ‘compartmentalization’).

== Examples ==

''' ''Anti-gentrification resistance'', Rome '''

The role of anti-eviction platforms was crucial as they contributed to voice the claim and to represent the interests of evicted/targeted citizens. The anti-eviction platforms liaised between them and the municipality as well as the Housing Authority. However, they did not have a formal role in influencing policy making [[Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Bottom-up resistance against gentrification in Rome]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Countering Gentrification: Community Based and Collaborative Methods]]

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freiburg'''

The “Vauban city planning council” was a consultative committee consisting of municipal actors, local parliamentarians and citizens. It can be considered as an intermediary as it was a place for discussion and mediation between stakeholders [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?|(Q15)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]

''' ''Bürger Energie Berlin'', Berlin'''

There have been changes in terms of changing how the energy system can be imagined, who owns it and who participates in it. Political documents for example the coalition agreement in Berlin have some changes, particular attention has been given to citizens’ participation in the energy sector. Now there is also legislation for tenants’ energy self-consumption models which the citizen energy movement has contributed to (Interview with a BEB representative on Sep. 9,2020).

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 [[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]]

''' ''Repowering'', London'''

The local government, Lambeth Council, which had a small group running a Low Carbon Zone served as an intermediary organization in the beginning which helped the team organize themselves and contact other relevant groups. The enabling configuration is the connectedness of this Council to various groups in the area. However, this group was small and had minimal capacity [[Inner-city community energy in London#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Inner-city community energy in London]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[From Electricity to Empowerment: Democratizing Urban Energy Systems]]

''' ''Community Land Trust Models'', Brussels'''

The Community Land Trust in Brussels is a social real estate developer that builds affordable housing projects on collectively-owned land in Brussels for people with limited means. Collaboration between separate stakeholder groups is integral to the project as its managing board consists of civil society/housing organisations, private firms, social enterprises and the local government [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see Appendix 1: Three modes of governance)|(Q5)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
*Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
*Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]]

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

In several neighbourhoods, multi-stakeholder decision making processes have been formalized in local, regular working groups that are steering the design for their Superblocks. This was a result of the lack of participation processes in Poblenou and the municipality retroactively realizing that individual Superblocks have to be adapted to local particularities. The working groups also serve promotional purposes e.g, presenting the Municipal Action Plan to residents and engaging citizens, local associations, and local economy. They also try to find agreements between different voices and stakeholder interests [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
*Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
*Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]]

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

This enabling governance arrangement tries to overcome injustices caused mostly by the [[Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities]] as well as [[Unfit institutional structures]].

Lack of effective knowledge brokerage and stewardship opportunities as a driver of injustice 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 social groups, sectors or disciplines and thus constrain the potential for both sustainability and justice. Creating bridging roles can help in overcoming barriers that certain disadvantaged groups might have, especially concerning the access to useful information of urban development projects around sustainability and justice. By translating language of practitioners/academia to one that disadvantaged groups can connect to in a better way, they can also express their needs and potential fears around these projects furthering especially procedural justice as well as justice as recognition.

Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Trying to bridge between e.g different municipal departments is key to overcoming silo-thinking and for the development of projects that integrate justice in urban sustainability governance. Institutionalising a role to translate language between municipal actors and underrepresented groups is also central when trying to commit to a meaningful participatory process.

== Critical reflection ==

As mentioned, intermediaries have to meaningfully consider voices of all involved stakeholders of a project. They therefore possess a very powerful role, as they can steer the project in certain directions by favoring some voices over others. This is especially important in justice oriented sustainability governance as the past decades have shown that certain entrenched interests (economic, class-based, race-based...) have been given priority in urban governance. This means that intermediaries have to know about types of barriers that different groups of underrepresented citizens might face. These barriers can be very unique for e.g women, children, undereducated/poor residents or people who are underrepresented because of their race. Sometimes, exclusion of underrepresented voices may therefore even happen with intermediaries that are supposed to include very different groups of citizens, as it is very difficult to recognise these barriers if you come from a position of power yourself. Intermediators may also play a highly problematic role if they disguise or downplay actual differences in objectives between different actors (e.g. achieving ‘green growth’ vs. ‘overcoming capitalism’) for the sake of harmony, a feeling of common purpose or the success of tangible projects.
Furthermore, intermediaries are not always neutral/impartial. They might be biased toward one type of institutional logic (or a way of doing things) or toward the priorities of the intermediary host (or "bridging platform"). This may cause conflict and undermine the bridging efforts.
Finally, a general issue that stands in the way of more just and sustainable cities is the project by project basis on which municipalities operate. This prevents long-term improvement of projects and leads to the repetition of similar mistakes, also related to stakeholder communication processes. Intermediaries, which are exposed to a variety of voices inside their cities, need to outlive singular projects and act as the long-term memory of the city, possibly as an institutionalised entity. This would truly improve not only communication between citizens and municipalities, but also between different departments inside the municipality itself - breaking up compartmentalization.

==Examples==

''' ''Holistic Neighborhood Development'', Augustenborg'''

In Malmö, each department has its own unit designed for community engagement (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. These departments could then become the core of long-term structured development processes, acting as an institutionalized intermediary and memory while transferring knowledge in and between cities [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg#31. Suggestions regarding transferability.|(Q31)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
*Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
*Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]]

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freiburg'''

The collaboration between citizens and the municipality was not always easy because each group had to adapt to the institutional logic of the others. For instance, when the GRAG invited a representative of Forum Vauban to take over a permanent seat in a consulting role, “Forum Vauban welcomed this decision of the city as a step towards them. Nevertheless they were not always satisfied, because the citizens were expected to adapt to the logic of urban planning which already existed in the city bureaucracy [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:|(Q23)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]]

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Institutions and processes that rely on different people to meet are facing restrictions concerning the number of people that can participate or even making meetings impossible at all. Purely switching to online formats does not seem feasible here as these bridging organizations build on low-entry barriers. Online meetings/formats could be a higher hurdle especially for older or less educated people as well as people who do not speak the language properly making the work of bridging roles more difficult.

Make space for adaptation and experimentation

2021-03-05T10:30:43Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU</embedvideo>

[[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Make Space for Adaptation and Experimentation]]

== 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. Such a mindset can be embodied in an organization’s culture and structures. 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.

==Examples==

''' ''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 [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?|(Q27 & Q28)]]. 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 [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#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.|(Q13)]]. The Resilience Lab - was thus a “test bed for new methodologies and innovative practices” [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)|(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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

''' ''Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg'', Augustenborg'''

An experimental approach was crucial; not being too uptight and learning from mistakes. This allowed for a lot great degree of adaptivity in the project [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg#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.)|(Q20)]].
In the beginning of the project, many people shared this experimental mindset. But However, 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 held a shared sense of responsibility and were more afraid of making mistakes [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg#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.)|(Q20)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Overcoming Silos in Urban Regeneration Projects: Holistic Neighbourhood Design]].

''' ''Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy'', Berlin'''

When Vattenfall filed a lawsuit against the government's decision on remunicipalisation, there were high chances of the situation disfavouring BEB. Thus, to stay relevant and for achieving their overarching goal of green electricity production and provision, BEB is reinventing itself and working on numerous other projects including solar energy production. A BEB representative in an interview stated,
‘...adapting 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' [[Citizens share in Berlin Energy Grid for sustainable energy#25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.|(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 [[Creating a Sustainable Energy System: a Citizen-Driven Transformation]].

''' ''Community led affordable housing in Brussels'', Brussels'''

While they try to develop standardized procedures when possible, the Land Trust team claims that it is essential to reflect upon and adapt to internal learning and external change: “We are constantly reflecting on things... 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." (Interview with De Pauw) [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#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:|(Q26a)]]. Furthermore, from the beginning, the Brussels Capital Region, a major financial supporter of the Land Trust, was responsive to the initiative’s interests, allowing it space to develop its innovative ideas [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels#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.)|(Q20)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Community led affordable housing in Brussels]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reimagining Affordable Housing from the Ground Up: Community Land Trust Models]].

''' ''Vauban'', Freiburg'''

Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg: From Q15 “The municipality also implemented the principle of “Planning that Learns," meaning that pilot initiatives would be experimented before being widely enforced. A prime example of this principle is the mobility concept of Vauban, which was first operated in one third of the district before being implemented in the whole neighborhood (Interview with A.).”

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

== 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. Furthermore, projects working with vulnerable groups may be more risk averse and try to minimize risk and experimentation as to avoid harming these people (i.e. low income residents developing social housing, can’t allow room for mistakes) (Interview with De Pauw).
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.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:30:08Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|right|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:29:36Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|left|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:28:36Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:28:06Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>
[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:27:46Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==
<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:27:36Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition == <embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:27:16Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>
== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:27:03Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left" dimensions="480">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:25:29Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:24:53Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:24:27Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="left">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Create a comprehensive vision of change

2021-03-05T10:24:11Z

Sophia McRae:

[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|400x400x|thumb|Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change]]
<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM</embedvideo>
== General ambition ==

A comprehensive vision of change is most influential when developed at multiple levels of governance, ranging from municipality-level visions to local visions for communities. While these visions encompass different scales and sectors, their convergence is important for supporting positive change. Visioning can include both abstract, deliberative processes about big questions, as well as practical details about specific projects.

# '''Broad, Integrated Visions''': A comprehensive vision of change towards sustainability and justice for an entire city can be built by integrating several small-scale interventions from different sectors. This can manifest itself in policies and laws. Key to this enabling governance arrangement is therefore the interaction between different scales of urban planning and policy making.
#'''Bottom-up, Community Visions''': Community-based organizations can generate grassroots visions of change based on collecting residents’ goals, ambitions, and images of the future.

== Examples ==

''Addressing the dimension 1.''

''' ''Superblocks'', Barcelona'''

When creating and implementing so-called “Superblocks” in the city, Barcelona embedded them in multiple city-level policies. Very important, for example, was the “Citizen Commitment for Sustainability” which was first signed in 2002 by over 800 public, private and civil-society organisations. Superblocks are one of the several actions that are defined in the document and consequently, experience public support. In general, Superblocks are connected to different policies e.g the Municipal Action Plan, the Barcelona Mobility Pact (1998), the Urban Mobility Plan of Barcelona (2013-2018), the city’s Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plan (until 2020) or the Barcelona Commitment to Climate, which creates synergies and gives the city a vision for comprehensive change, including Superblocks as one of the many means of reaching that change [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona#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)|(Q18)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona]]
* Check out the brief governance scenario called [[Reclaiming Street Space: Cooperation for Neighbourhood Transformation]].

''Addressing the dimension 2.''

''' ''Vauban neighborhood'', Freibrug'''

Vauban’s prospective residents as well as project proponents developed a shared vision on how to live in a more sustainable way i.e. parking free areas, sustainable mobility, affordable and inclusive housing etc. [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]]. This shared vision was possible because of a convergence between municipal priorities and community aspirations for the new district [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg#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.|(Q13)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Co-creation of a sustainable neighborhood in Freiburg]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Collaborating Across Institutional Boundaries: Co-Creating Sustainable Neighborhoods]].

''' ''Carnisse neighborhood'', Rotterdam'''

In workshops organized by local organizations, residents were invited to develop a shared vision of the district redevelopment and establish an agenda for transformative and experimental actions e.g. create a community center, a shared garden etc. [[Regeneration of a deprived neighborhood in Rotterdam#14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?|(Q14)]].

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 [[Nurturing Trust in Community-Driven Regeneration: Continuity amidst Institutional Uncertainty]].

== Relation to justice in urban sustainability governance ==

Broad, integrated visions may overcome injustices caused by [[Unfit institutional structures]] and [[Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration]].
Unfit institutional structures as a driver of injustice refers to those aspects or functions of organizations, public offices, administrations and authorities that deal with urban governance and stand in the way of achieving just outcomes in urban sustainability.
Uneven and exclusionary urban intensification and regeneration as a driver of injustice 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.
In this enabling governance arrangement, finding a balance between ecological sustainability, social and economical goals of a city is especially important, as a comprehensive vision built on integrated planning should guide the city in balancing these goals.

Community organizations that actively work in a certain neighbourhood may be better positioned to include voices of underrepresented groups in their area than a municipality-led participatory process. Expressing a vision of the future through different types of exercises (e.g. drawing) can empower certain groups (e.g children or people not speaking the same language) that otherwise might not have the ability to express themselves in other types of settings. Thinking about how you want your personal future to look like and how a project can help to reach that future has a huge potential in connecting individuals to one another, in fostering a sense of belonging and in generating momentum.

== Critical reflection ==

A potential barrier to benefitting from a previously developed comprehensive vision of change lies in its actual implementation in small scale interventions. There is sometimes a gap between what is happening in smaller-scale-projects and with bigger visions (and policies) as economic considerations often dominate the design and implementation of even sustainability-oriented small-scale projects, leading to ecologically unsustainable or unjust outcomes, also on a city-wide level.
The challenge then is not only the development of a comprehensive vision of change, but to also empower it to actually shape small-scale interventions.

Additionally, developing a comprehensive vision of change is a significant task that community projects take upon themselves. It requires investing resources that can not at the same time go directly into changes in the project itself. Talking about where to go with a project in the longer term at the cost of working less towards tangible improvements also requires commitment, effort and belief. Especially community projects that completely rely on voluntary work might not have the capacity to do this. Projects therefore need to find a good balance between thinking about a vision for their project and actively working to achieve tangible results.

In some cases, different stakeholders may have conflicting visions of an area, or initiative. There is even a risk, for example, for conflicting visions to create tension between social and ecological priorities. In such a case, project managers would be required to avoid a zero-sum game situation and instead work towards a solution that addresses social priorities without compromising ecological sustainability.

==Examples==

''' ''Barcelona National Park'', Barcelona'''

Striking a balance between dual goals of biodiversity protection and fulfilling local citizens' demand for greater access to green spaces and recreational activities was very important for the Park. The Special Plan for the Protection of the Natural Environment and Landscape of Collserola Mountain (PepNat) responded to the challenge of preserving biodiversity while providing much needed recreational ecosystem services, especially in relation to the high density of population in surrounding areas [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9)]].

Learn more about this intervention:
* Take a look at the detailed [[Biodiversity protection and social justice in the Barcelona Natural Park]]
* check out the brief governance scenario called [[Negotiating Green Space Development: Balancing Long-Term Sustainability and Short-Term Social Needs]].

== Covid-19 connection/How does this enabling arrangement play out under the conditions of a pandemic? ==

Under social distancing regulations, community projects cannot meet as normal and face restrictions when doing so. Online formats may not offer a good substitute especially considering the spirit that some community projects rely upon as well, thus making the development of a comprehensive vision of change harder.

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-05T10:21:53Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
Across Europe there is an inspiring array of experimentation with local governance arrangements for sustainable and just 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. (Watch us explain this more in the video to the right).

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

== 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 ten 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 ten original, real-world governance interventions, our empirical basis, in our database of rich descriptions (see next section below).

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.

While these enabling governance arrangements show a potential applicability in several different contexts, it is not claimed that these arrangements will produce positive outcomes in all contexts or are the sole factors for bringing interventions to fruition. Rather, they need to be applied cautiously and adapted to local conditions.

When clicking on one of the illustrations of six Enabling Governance Arrangements listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

<div><ul> 
<li style="display: inline-table;">
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:A-Vision.jpg|300px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
| [[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
|-
| [[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|300px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
| [[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
|-
| [[File:C-Bridges.jpg|300px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
| [[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
|} </li>
<li style="display: inline-table;">
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:D-Participation.jpg|300px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gdMhQ52XA]]
| [[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
|-
| [[File:E-Networks.jpg|300px|link=https://youtu.be/OEHRKECRX_U]]
| [[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
|-
| [[File:F-Finance.jpg|300px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
| [[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
|}</li>
</ul></div>

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-05T10:20:41Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
Across Europe there is an inspiring array of experimentation with local governance arrangements for sustainable and just 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. (Watch us explain this more in the video to the right).

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

== 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 ten 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 ten original, real-world governance interventions, our empirical basis, in our database of rich descriptions (see next section below).

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.

While these enabling governance arrangements show a potential applicability in several different contexts, it is not claimed that these arrangements will produce positive outcomes in all contexts or are the sole factors for bringing interventions to fruition. Rather, they need to be applied cautiously and adapted to local conditions.

When clicking on one of the illustrations of six Enabling Governance Arrangements listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

<div><ul> 
<li style="display: inline-table;">
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:A-Vision.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
| [[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
|-
| [[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
| [[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
|-
| [[File:C-Bridges.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
| [[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
|} </li>
<li style="display: inline-table;">
{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:D-Participation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gdMhQ52XA]]
| [[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
|-
| [[File:E-Networks.jpg|200px|link=https://youtu.be/OEHRKECRX_U]]
| [[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
|-
| [[File:F-Finance.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
| [[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
|}</li>
</ul></div>

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens

2021-03-04T14:03:32Z

Sophia McRae:

This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take look at [[Bringing sustainable infrastructure - carefully engaging in public-private partnerships]].

You read this description and want to hear more about this case? Get in touch! Contact Panagiota Kotsila for more information.

{{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)”]'''===

The intervention refers to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Cultural Center (SNFCC) and takes place in the city of Athens, Greece. The cultural center is an urban regeneration project established in the framework of a private-public partnership. It hosts two major cultural institutions and includes a park. The overall infrastructure is sustainable and based on nature based solutions.

The intervention has been developed at the scale of a neighborhood in a capital city (Athens).

==='''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.]'''===

The intervention has been developed for the urban development policy field as well as cultural development.

==='''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]'''===

The project addresses both issues of social justice and sustainability. However, social justice is not directly mentioned but is rather framed as broader access to cultural facilities and environmental amenities. The first refers to the access to the two cultural institutions hosted in the center i.e. the Greek National Library and the Greek Opera. In addition, the SNFCC offers a free set of activities such as yoga classes or music workshops: “the project is committed to a range of educational and cultural activities, which have been provided for free” (Naturvation’s webpage). Environmental amenities refers to the large park, which contributes to the health and the well-being of the local population.

From the perspective of the SNFCC, the intervention addresses social justice by being inclusive. Inclusiveness includes the access to the facilities for mobility-reduced visitors and the activities free-of-charge. The intervention also aims at improving the quality of life of the local community “with clean air, exercise facilities and twice as much green space” (Naturvation_04: 2).

Sustainability achievements refer to the sustainable construction and design of the SNFCC, which is LEED (i.e. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified (an internationally recognized certification). The building has a recycled water system, a green roof, and solar panels. The park is designed in a way that is conservative with water usage and adapted to the local climate (i.e. with Mediterranean plants for instance). The expected impacts include “sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12)” as well as “green space, habitat and biodiversity (SDG 15)" (Naturvation’s webpage). At the scale of the neighborhood, the intervention addresses environmental health issues, as it was built on a formerly degraded area (interview with P.). Scaling up, the intervention is a response major sustainability challenges in Athens, namely high rates of air pollution due to the heat island effect and limited green spaces, as Athens has the lowest per capita green space among the EU cities (Naturvation_05: 2).

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

The project started in 2009 and was finalized in 2016.

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

The intervention is characterized by a co-governance of hybrid governance model (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors), between private actors (i.e. the SNF) and public actors (i.e. the Greek State).

==='''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 intervention is interesting because it shows an example of public-private partnership (PPP) adapted to a very particular context i.e. a period of economical crisis and austerity (which obviously raises concerns about sustainability and social justice). This governance intervention was radically shaped by this context.

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

*SNFCC’s case in Naturavtion’s Atlas: https://naturvation.eu/nbs/athens/stavros-niarchos-foundation-cultural-center-snfcc
*Snapshot - Athens: Stavros Niarchos Cultural center. Coded in Zotero (Naturvation_05)
*SNFCC Impact Study (from the SNFCC). Coded in Zotero (Naturvation_04)
*Interview with Panagiota Kotsila (UAB team) on 06/04/20.

== 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).'''

The intervention has been studied in the framework of a EU-funded project called NATURVATION (2016-20).<ref>Naturvation website. Last view on 26/06/20: https://naturvation.eu/.</ref> The project focuses on nature-based solutions (NBS) that are applied and implemented in urban contexts and aims at identifying how NSB governance and innovation can address urban sustainability challenges.

*'''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.'''

The intervention best fits under the [[Nature-based solutions | Nature-based solutions]] approach. However, only the overall project (i.e. Naturvation) is mentioned, not the intervention itself.

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

Some deliverables of Naturvation’s project have been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4. However, none of these deliverables refer to SNFCC’s case.

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

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

From the perspective of the SNF, inequality and exclusion has been problematized in terms of:
*Inclusion and accessibility . The SNFCC offers very low entry fees (compared to other cultural attractions) and free-of-charge activities (Naturvation_04: 13). The SNFCC is accessible for people with special needs (disabilities).
*Improving the quality of life for the local community. This includes: improving the appearance and attractiveness of the areas, increasing the access to green amenities, enhancing local businesses, providing health benefits (cleaner air and offering opportunities for exercise), making the neighborhood safer (Naturvation_04: 35-41).

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

From the perspective of the SNF, justice is understood in terms of citizens’ well-being and welfare. In that sense, it is one motivation among others behind the intervention.

*'''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]]
|
| X
|-
| 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]]
|
| 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 ]]
|
| X
|-
| style="text-align:left;" | 10. [[Weak(ened) civil society | Weak(ened) civil society]]
|
|
|}

== c) Actor constellations ==

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

The intervention was initiated by a private actor, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF), who came to the Greek State and proposed to build the cultural center. The SNF is a nonprofit foundation held by a very rich family of ship owners in Greece (the foundation does mainly charity works and operates in Greece and internationally). However, this project has a longer history that involves various actors (see Q. 17)

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

The envisioned benefiters of the intervention are: the public sector institution (e.g. school or hospital); non-government organization/civil society ; private sector/corporate/company; citizens or community groups (based on the list provided in Naturavation webpage).

It seems more generally that the intervention will benefit Athenian visitors, because of the cultural activities offered by the center. To some extent, the intervention also benefits the Greek population. At a time when the country was facing a financial and austerity crisis that deteriorated its international image, the center can be a source of national pride and international recognition (i.e. the cultural center seek to be a “global role model of environmental sustainability and also to contribute to the valorization of Greek culture and heritage).

==='''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
| X
| The Stravos Niarchos company (SNF CC SA)
the Greek National Opera (public)

|-
| Local/regional government
| X
| Maires of municipalities surrounding the area
|-
| Regional organizations
|
|
|-
| National government
| X
| the Greek State (i.e. represented by the ministries of education, of cultural and of the economy)
|-
| Supranational government
|
|
|-
| International networks
|
|
|-
| Other initiatives
| X
| (nonprofit) the Greek National Library (Public)
(nonprofit) the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) (private)

|}

==='''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 intervention could emerge successfully because the SNF came to the state with a project already set-up (i.e. the configuration, the design, and also the PPP), to which the Greek State only had to agree. The State - weakened by the crisis at this time - did not call for tender but was offered a predefined project. In that sense, the intervention emerged because it was one-sided. In addition, the SNF benefited from the support of the National Opera and the National Library that requested the foundation for help to relocate. Thus, the SNF came to the Greek State with a strong proposal and offered a lot of money at a time when the Greek state was sorely lacking it.

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

The SNFCC is a top-down intervention since “the conceptualization, design, type of uses and technical execution of the whole SNFCC project were top-down” and driven by the SNF (Naturvation’s webpage). There was no kind of participatory process that included citizens in the decisionmaking. From the SNF’s perspective, a sort of participation was conceptualized ex-ante. Visitors or citizens could individually raise some claims by writing an email to the foundation on a dedicated platform. In addition, information days were organized during the construction where people could come and get informed about what was happening there.

A public committee - composed of the maires representatives of the state as well as the ministers of culture, education and finances - was held from the beginning towards the end of the project to discuss what was happening. However, the role of the committee was only consultative, rather than contributing signficantly to the decision-making.

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

The SNF was the main decision-maker of the project. It conceptualized the whole approach while the Greek State had only to agree on that project and to sign the law that enforced this Public-Private Partnership (PPP). The SNF was responsible for the whole vision and decision-making of the conceptualisation, design, and technical execution of the cultural center. In addition, the SNF pre-decided a list of companies that were to be contracted to build and further maintain the center after its completion. Then, the cultural center was donated to the Greek State which under the supervision of the Ministry of Finances (Naturvation’s webpage) undertook full responsibility.

The cultural center is composed of three organizations. Two of them are hosted there, the National Library and the National Opera, and the third is a management company called the SNFCC SA that was created by the foundation and donated to the State. It belongs now to the Ministry of Finances,
although the executive team (circa 40 employees) works as if it was under private supervision of the SNFCC.

Decision-making power is centralized by the SNF. The State and the two national institutions hosted there lost a significant part of their autonomy because they are bound to the law (i.e. the PPP) that gave great powers to the SNF. They do not have the agency to choose how to manage the place nor to choose the companies they will hire or choose how to spend their money. If the State and the public institution do not comply with these rules, the foundation will legally withdraw the amount of money they donated (under-conditions of compliance with these rules) and the State will have to pay it all back (interview with P.).

It appears that despite the public-private nature of the project (due to the co-ownership between the Greek state and the SNF), the cultural center is rather privately managed, which prevents any kind of “bottom-up or self-managed activities” (Naturvation_05: 4).

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

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

Exclusion occurred during the conceptualization of the project and after its completion. First, the shaping of the intervention was centralized by the SNF and excluded citizens (there were no participatory process nor public consultation) as well as a set of companies that could have engaged with the project (in the conceptualization phase, the construction, or the maintenance). Since the SNF decided its collaborators in advance, lots of public and private actors (i.e. architecture, construction, maintenance companies) were excluded: “ there has been no active consultation and engagement involving end-users in defining the project and subsequently monitoring service quality” (Naturvation_05: 4).

Second, exclusions occurred after the completion of the center and targets visitors of the center.
*Exclusion in terms of accessibility: because it is not located in the city center of Athens and is not connected to it with a metro line, the center is not so easy to access, especially for people without a vehicle (i.e. students, elderly) (there is a parking lot but not free of charges).
*Class-based/financial exclusion. The Opera had increased the price of its ticket (to cover the cost of the rent due to the foundation). This also raised the question of who is able to pay for going to Opera in Greece at a moment of crisis? The cafés and restaurants of the cultural center have been contracted by the SNF and are a bit pricier than any kind of neighborhood cafés. In addition, a membership card, for which one pays a certain fee, gives members the possibility to have cheaper parking rates, to reserve places for the free activities, and thus to enjoy more activities offered by the center.
*Public/private indirect exclusion. The cultural center and the park are public but are privately managed i.e. private guards are surveilling the park rather than municipal officers. This means that visitors do not know who defines the rules in those premises. This is a form of indirect exclusion (interview with P.)

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

Some measures have been taken to involve more citizens. Since 2013, this included the possibility for citizens “to view the construction site and learn about the SNFCC scope, organization and future plan”. However, this is only information and has not to be mistaken with effective public participation. The document underlines that “public participation and citizen engagement for transparency and promotion of the public interest are hard to achieve in privately initiated NBS” (Naturavation_05: 4).

== 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 context of the financial crisis, resulting austerity measures, and project development shaped the intervention. First, the project is built on a long history related to the place where it is set-up. The area was formerly a horse racing track, which then hosted the Olympic Games in 2004 and was abandoned afterwards. Local inhabitants asked the municipalities to turn it into a public green space. Before the crisis hit, the State promised that a public park would be created in that area, but after 2008-09 the project failed. At this time, the National Opera and the National Library requested SNF for support for their facilities, even for relocation. Then, the SNF came to the state with a project that would somehow meet both the residents' requests (i.e. to do something with this abandoned place and to provide green amenities) and the request of the two institutions.

In addition, the context of economic crisis, austerity, and environmental challenges (air pollution, degraded area), and with intention to restore the Greek image through cultural valorization (Naturvation’s website), the creation of a sustainable and innovative center hosting two major cultural institutions was positively welcomed by citizens. The project developed under the circumstances in which the Greek State, weakened by the economical crisis and austerity, was not able to pay for any alternative project or even to be proactive to make a call for tenders. The intervention only became possible by the establishment of a public-private partnership (PPP) designed by the SNF.

==='''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]])'''===

The establishment of a public-private partnership (PPP) made possible the intervention to emerge. The scheme - as a kind of a loop - is the following: "the state provides the land, the private entity makes the construction and the state manages its functioning” (Naturvation_05: 3). This PPP was formalized in a signed agreement - a law - between the Greek State and the SNFCC foundation, which has been ratified by the Greek parliament (Law 3785-2009) (Naturvation’s webpage). The agreement entails that the state has to fulfill the agreed upon terms and conditions (i.e. especially regarding the selected collaborators) or the donor has the right to withdraw its donation. The two institutions hosted by the SNFCC remained autonomous but endorsed new financial responsibilities and did not have the agency to manage the building facilities.

==='''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 law defining the PPP is a presidential decree that has been ratified by the Greek parliament. Practically, the PPP has been conceptualized by the legal team of the foundation and submitted to the Greek government who accordingly issued a decree.

==='''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.)'''===

The intervention occurred at a moment of despair, mistrust, and disillusionment from the citizens towards the Greek State. Local inhabitants had been waiting for a long time for something to be done with this degraded area and the State had not had the capacity to do anything. The donors appeared, proposing to pay for building something for the people. It undertook a providential figure, which matches the philanthropic and well-known image of the Niarchos family and foundation: “Ok so the State is not able to do anything so we need some rich man to come and save us.” (Interview with P.)

“I think it can cut people, and the state as well and the government as well, in a weak moment where it's like, somebody is willing to give us money actually when everybody wants to take money away from us. Because at that moment with the debt, everybody was losing their salaries, their retirements. Then a big donator comes and says: 'ok, I'm going to throw millions of euros to make something for you'" (interview with P.).

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

The financial agreement is the following; the state provided the land (public property), the SNFCC foundation covered the all the cost for designing and building the center (private funds) and then donated it (under conditions) to the state, which controls its functioning and management by the complex SNFCC SA (publicly run). However, the viability of the project depends on the capacity of the state to cover the high running cost of the structure. The money comes respectively from “the parking lot and the renting of cafés and restaurants, and of other spaces for events” as well as the fees (rent or/and “management fees") paid to the SNFCC SA by the Greek National Library and the Greek National Opera for being hosted by the center (only the the latter is a profit-organization) (Naturvation_05: 3).

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

n/a

'''''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'''

The potential obstacle could have been the legal framework because this particular PPP is a form of “donation under-condition," which is quite specific and might oppose some juridical principle (regarding State autonomy for instance). However, the legal team of the foundation conceptualized this legal agreement and dealt with any potential obstacles related to its complexity.

*'''b. Legitimacy'''

n/a

*'''c. Public awareness'''

n/a

*'''d. Finances'''

n/a

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

n/a

== 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?
|-
| The complexity of the legal agreement (the PPP)
| The legal team of the foundation established the agreement and submitted ready-made to the State
|
|}

== 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.'''===

The positive outcomes are:
*The new facilities for the National Library and the National Opera
*The park that provides green amenities, especially for local residents
*Overall, the cultural center is quite busy and people come to it

However, the project raised concerns about:
*Lost autonomy of the State and the two institutions that are hosted there. They have no agency to choose how to manage the building and have to comply with the terms set-up by the foundation.
*“Cultural appropriation” (interview with P.). The way that the place is promoted and marketed tends to symbolically privatize public properties and institutions. For instance, many Athenians say that they go to the Niarchos Center or Niarchos Library although the National Library is a cultural heritage that belongs to the State and does not belong to the Niarchos family and foundation.
*Gentrification. Just after the project was announced, speculation started in the area and the prices in the neighboring municipalities have arisen to 20% in the last five years, which is one of the highest percentages in Athens. This gentrification is related to culture and green amenities.
*Financial risk for the state. The State is taking financial risk from the moment it undertook the responsibility of running the center after it's completion. The center was extremely expensive to build (sustainable and innovative design and huge area covered) but is also very expensive to maintain because the selected companies contracted by the SNF are mostly above the market prices. At the same time, the State is bound to the agreement signed with the foundation and is responsible for the financial viability of the project. In case of economic fail or bankruptcy, it would be the State debt and taxpayer money that will pay for it.

== 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.'''

n/a

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

n/a

=== 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'''

The foundation is an international foundation that has experience in the management of different kinds of PPP. The legal team most likely has some experience in establishing some sorts of PPP.

Concerning the construction of the building, Renzo Piano, the architect hired by the foundation, is one of the top names in sustainable construction. The SNFCC was inspired by other international large-scale certificated LEED Platinum (including the Water+Life Museum, USA; Clinton Presidential Library, USA; Vestas Technology Center, Denmark; Taipei 101, Taiwan; Park Ventures, Thailand) (Naturvation_04: 46). The intervention is then a matter of elite expertise and know-how, though it did happen as a closed process.

Overall, both regarding the PPP procedure and the construction, it seems that the foundation operated on its own with its own resources and knowledge without necessarily involving the municipality: “I don't think there was a lot of back and forth with the local authorities” (Interview with P.).

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

n/a

=== 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?'''===

Nothing about governance arrangements.

However, regarding sustainable construction, the infrastructure has been adapted to the local context i.e. a Mediterranean environment. For instance, the park is landscaped with plants specifically adapted to the Mediterranean climate (e.g. do not require a lot of water) (interview with p.).

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

There was not really a learning process since the potential obstacle (i.e. the legal complexity of the PPP agreement) was overcome internally by the foundation.

==='''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.'''===

Importing knowledge by employing people specifically qualified and recognized in the field (of sustainable construction).

== 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]'''

The potential of the project is to launch a dynamic of innovation in the area and to pledge local actors to consider the PPP.

From the perspective of the SNF, the SNFCC is “a role model of environmental sustainability across 3 dimensions: environmentally friendly design and construction, environmentally friendly operations, biodiversity & local ecosystem enhancement” and achieved a LEED Platinum certification (i.e. a sustainable label (Naturvation_04: 44). However, nothing is mentioned about transferability of the project. What is a “global role model”? Is that only inspirational?

Replicability however is mentioned in relation with the type of PPP: “SNFCC can serve as a model for future cooperation between public & private initiative in similar projects” (Naturvation_04: 65).

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

The context is not specified. This could take place in any major city (capable of hosting such big cultural institutions).

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

The claim of transferring the model of PPP is made by the SNF.

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

The prerequisite of establishing such a project (including the use of innovative techniques) is to find private funds (Naturvation_05: 4). However, the document highlights that “this prerequisite (generous funds from a private actor) is however not easily replicated in other projects”.

In addition, concerns have been raised regarding the risks and the loss of autonomy of the Greek State. It seem this kind of governance arrangement will not occur in a city or country having a robust or healthy financial situation because no public actor will accept the terms offered by the foundation: “I think that the fact that it happened in Greece in a moment of crisis was very key to the way things happen” (Interview with P.).

==='''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> '''===

n/a

==='''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”?)'''===

“Neighbouring municipalities have started to explore ways of capitalizing on the new project (the SNFCC) to attract development funding” (Naturvation_05: 4).

== 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?

n/a

== k) Reflections on important governance concepts ==

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

n/a

==='''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?'''===

For the researcher that studies the project, it is important to highlight that it is a donation under non-negotiable legal terms. It is a very special form of PPP: “it's like a kind of temporary or a donation but a final outcome of state responsibility” (interview with P.).

== 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

2021-03-04T13:59:04Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
Across Europe there is an inspiring array of experimentation with local governance arrangements for sustainable and just 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 results of a study on fruitful governance interventions for sustainable and just cities.

== 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 ten 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 ten 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 governance 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 6 EGA illustrations listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:A-Vision.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
| [[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
|-
| [[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
| [[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
|-
| [[File:C-Bridges.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
| [[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
|-
| [[File:D-Participation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gdMhQ52XA]]
| [[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
|-
| [[File:E-Networks.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zFJ3S_dBA]]
| [[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
|-
| [[File:F-Finance.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
| [[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
|}

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-04T13:57:23Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
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.

== 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 ten 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 ten 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 governance 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 6 EGA illustrations listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:A-Vision.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
| [[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
|-
| [[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
| [[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
|-
| [[File:C-Bridges.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
| [[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
|-
| [[File:D-Participation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gdMhQ52XA]]
| [[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
|-
| [[File:E-Networks.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3zFJ3S_dBA]]
| [[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
|-
| [[File:F-Finance.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
| [[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
|}

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-04T13:55:22Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
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.

== 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 ten 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 ten 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 governance 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 6 EGA illustrations listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Title for EGA Video
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
|-
| [[File:A-Vision.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
| [[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
|-
| [[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
| [[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
|-
| [[File:C-Bridges.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
| [[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
|-
| [[File:D-Participation.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/i9gdMhQ52XA]]
| [[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
|-
| [[File:E-Networks.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/G3zFJ3S_dBA]]
| [[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
|-
| [[File:F-Finance.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
| [[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
|}

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-04T13:53:18Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
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.

== 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 ten 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 ten 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 governance 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 6 EGA illustrations listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Illustration for EGA Description
! Click Thumbnail for EGA Video
|-
| 1.[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
| 1.[[File:A-Vision.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
|-
| 2.[[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
| 2.[[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
|-
| 3.[[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
| 3.[[File:C-Bridges.jpg|200px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
|-
| 4.[[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
| 4.[[File:D-Participation.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/i9gdMhQ52XA]]
|-
| 5.[[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
| 5.[[File:E-Networks.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/G3zFJ3S_dBA]]
|-
| 6.[[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|200px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
| 6.[[File:F-Finance.jpg|200px|link= https://youtu.be/rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
|}

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

Database of governance arrangements

2021-03-04T13:51:57Z

Sophia McRae:

<embedvideo service="youtube" alignment="right">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0GtehQ11ts</embedvideo>
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.

== 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 ten 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 ten 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 governance 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 6 EGA illustrations listed below, you will find a short description as well as links to the real world governance experiments which have inspired us to synthesize these potentially 'enabling governance arrangements'.

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center; background-color:#efefef;"
! Click Thumbnails for EGA Video
! Click Vignette for EGA Description
|-
| 1.[[File:Create a Comprehensive Vision of Change.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Create_a_comprehensive_vision_of_change]]
| 1.[[File:A-Vision.jpg|50px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VKvR8Gm3YM]]
|-
| 2.[[File:2 Makes Space For Adaptation.jpg.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Make_space_for_adaptation_and_experimentation]]
| 2.[[File:B-Adaptation.jpg|50px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkDYPNmEOU]]
|-
| 3.[[File:3 Build bridges.jpg.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Build_bridges_between_separate_stakeholder_groups]]
| 3.[[File:C-Bridges.jpg|50px|link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1bc_5uvlw]]
|-
| 4.[[File:4 Commit To A Meaningful Participation.jpg.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Commit_to_a_meaningful_participation_process]]
| 4.[[File:D-Participation.jpg|50px|link= https://youtu.be/i9gdMhQ52XA]]
|-
| 5.[[File:5 tap Into Existing Community Networks.jpg.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Tap_into_existing_community_networks]]
| 5.[[File:E-Networks.jpg|50px|link= https://youtu.be/G3zFJ3S_dBA]]
|-
| 6.[[File:6 Develop Resilient Financing Arrangements.jpg.jpeg|50px|link=https://wiki.urban-arena.eu/Develop_resilient,_and_self-sufficient_financing_arrangements]]
| 6.[[File:F-Finance.jpg|50px|link= https://youtu.be/rRS1Fwq5uaM]]
|}

What additional governance arrangements should be included that could facilitate a transition to sustainable and just cities?

Would you like to get involved? We've asked some questions in this wiki, 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]].

== Governance interventions ==

We have selected ten 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 entirely “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]]

File:F-Finance.jpg

2021-03-04T13:50:07Z

Sophia McRae:

File:E-Networks.jpg

2021-03-04T13:48:56Z

Sophia McRae:

File:D-Participation.jpg

2021-03-04T13:47:26Z

Sophia McRae: