Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg
This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at link to the scenario
a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]
This project is about a holistic neighbourhood development programme called Ekostaden Augustenborg and is located in a neighbourhood/district in Malmö, a swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.
It is about a holistic, sustainable development of the area which started with works on the development of a Drainage System, energy retrofitted buildings and issues around biodiversity but over the course of the project even more social, ecological and economical topics became part of it.
2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]
holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement
3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]
There is a wide focus on sustainability which includes all kind of measures in different areas:
- A strong focus on energy efficient buildings (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small scale-wind and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
- The project also aims at the modification of energy related behavior and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising and training programs as well as agreements in the rental contract
- It includes a wide variety of goals around mobility with a prioritisation of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; the encouragement of a local use of electric vehicles and the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service as well as car-pooling among residents.
- Another string of development are goals around greening the area with an attempted increase in biodiversity and a greening of roofs.
- Another big part of the intervention was the creation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which aimed at reducing flooding by 70% as the capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).
- The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood:
annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organised visits, etc.
The intervention strongly focuses on procedural justice and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages and in some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.
4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?
The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).
There are other projects that continued to further the image of a eco-neighbourhood that happened a lot later e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg, a high-rise building with a passive-house energy standard was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as one mentioned below), but the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.
5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see Appendix 1: Three modes of governance)
It is government-led but characterised by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members lateron in the project, arguably developing into a more hybrid mode of governance.
6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?[1]
The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability while considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and the documentation by SMARTEES is very extensive. Developing a neighbourhood in an holistic, integrative way is crucial as it aims at breaking down institutional logics, as well as compartmentalised policy making leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.
7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?
- Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
- Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
- World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work
8. EU Project-context of the intervention:
- a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).
It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability which lasts from 2018 until 2021. https://local-social-innovation.eu/
- b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.
Governance and participation processes
Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation
- c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.
9. Problematization and priority:
- a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?
The area has had high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems which affects the general liveability which was problematized by the municipality.
- b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?
Not directly. More in a way that life quality in the area in general is quite low in comparison to other districts of the city. It therefore is about distributional justice to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) to other areas of the city and about environmental justice issues (e.g. to protect them from floodings that could not be handled well in the past due to a missing working Drainage System).
It also tackles justice as recognition as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.
It therefore also targets procedural justice aspects.
- c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see Database of drivers of injustice)
c) Actor constellations
10. Who initiated the intervention?
The district renovation was promoted by the city administration together with the local public housing company (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).
11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)
People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), also due to the environmental benefits; an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialisation, etc.), the decrease of unemployment and the increase of political participation.
12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?
| Actor types[2] | Yes | Actor name and role[3] |
|---|---|---|
| Academic organizations | ||
| Religious organizations | ||
| Civil society organizations | ||
| Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations | ||
| Platforms | ||
| NGOs | ||
| Social movements | ||
| Political parties | ||
| Media | ||
| Unions | ||
| Social entreprises | ||
| For profit entreprises | ||
| Local/regional government | ||
| Regional organizations | ||
| National government | ||
| Supranational government | ||
| International networks | ||
| Other initiatives |
13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.
The role of certain individuals has been emphasised by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Especially important has been the enthusiasm of those individuals. Especially mentioned are: Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg Christer Sandgren at MKB Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998
Especially in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions that tried to address ALL issues in the area and did not care too much if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).
Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.
14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?
Citizen participation is one of the keys to the success of this intervention.
All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations so as to have the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents. The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
- extensive public consultation, regular meetings, and permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings and co-design.
Important to note is the different level of participation for different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, project proponents thought about which physical investment based projects have the most scope for public involvement in design and development of the project, which have opportunities for jobs etc. (Interview Trevor Graham) Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other, more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance, which still means that plans might have to be adapted, but the focus there is around creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but more green roofs were created when the community designed the waste-management houses (which they were in charge of) and wanted to have green roofs on them. (Interview Trevor Graham)
In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project. Several ideas of residents were completed and implemented into the neighbourhood such as:
- Developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
- an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
- energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
- Creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children and hubs for increased biodiversity
- the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
- the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö
To add: School pupils were involved in different aspects of the project e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels. One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project which led to less public and neighbourhood interest. (see Q.23). This makes future efforts in the neighbourhood also more difficult as it hollows out trust by residents.
15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?
answer
16. Exclusion:
- a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?
answer
- b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?
answer
d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)
answer
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)
answer
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?
answer
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.)
answer
21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?
answer
22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?
answer
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
answer
- b. Legitimacy
answer
- c. Public awareness
answer
- d. Finances
answer
- e. Others (please name)
answer
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.)
| Name of obstacle | What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups? |
|---|---|
| 1. | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 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.
answer
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)[4]. 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.
answer
- b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?
answer
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
answer
- b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere
answer
- c. from other knowledge gathering/research
answer
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?
answer
29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?
answer
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)[5] and the actors involved in using them.
answer
i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
31. Suggestions regarding transferability.
- a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]
answer
- b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?
answer
- c. Who has made the claims?
answer
- d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?
answer
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?[6]
answer
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”?)
answer
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?
answer
k) Reflections on important governance concepts
35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?
answer
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?
answer
Appendix 1: Three modes of governance
(from NATURVATION project)
NATURVATION's 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)
| 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. |
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.
- ↑ If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.
- ↑ 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 .
- ↑ http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- ↑ 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.