Integrated Collaborative Governance Approaches towards Urban Transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities Project
Abstract
Within the framework of CLEVER Cities Horizon 2020, London, Milan, and Hamburg are putting in place nine Urban Living Labs in order to implement Nature-based Solutions that address urban challenges in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. In this article, the means by which co-creation processes and pathways may lead to innovation in governance structures are considered. Through a comparative case study analysis, this research aims to identify integrated, collaborative governance frameworks that are complex and adaptive, as well as reflect the actual changes in governance in cities. Herein, ULLs are intended not just as a vehicle for place-based urban regeneration but also as a starting point for collaborative governance. In this article, it is considered how co-creation pathways may lead to innovation in current local governance structures and achieve transformational change. This paper analyzes the collaborative governance dynamic models at three points in time in the three cities. It is also considered how co-creation pathways may lead to innovation in current local governance structures and achieve transformational change.
Full text
Citation: Bradley, S.; Mahmoud, I.H.; Arlati, A. Integrated Collaborative Governance Approaches towards Urban Transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities Project. Sustainability 2022,14, 15566. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142315566 Academic Editor: Fausto Cavallaro Received: 20 October 2022 Accepted: 20 November 2022 Published: 23 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Integrated Collaborative Governance Approaches towards Urban Transformation: Experiences from the CLEVER Cities Project Sean Bradley 1, Israa H. Mahmoud 2,* and Alessandro Arlati 3,* 1Groundwork London, CLEVER Cities Programme, Groundwork London, 18-21 Morley Street, London SE1 7QZ, UK 2Laboratorio di Simulazione Urbana Fausto Curti, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi, 3, 20133 Milano, Italy 3Department of Urban Planning and Regional Development, HafenCity Universität Hamburg, Henning-Voscherau-Platz 1, 20457 Hamburg, Germany *Correspondence: [email protected] (I.H.M.); [email protected] (A.A.) Abstract: Within the framework of CLEVER Cities Horizon 2020, London, Milan, and Hamburg are putting in place nine Urban Living Labs in order to implement Nature-based Solutions that address urban challenges in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. In this article, the means by which co-creation processes and pathways may lead to innovation in governance structures are considered. Through a comparative case study analysis, this research aims to identify integrated, collaborative governance frameworks that are complex and adaptive, as well as reflect the actual changes in governance in cities. Herein, ULLs are intended not just as a vehicle for place-based urban regeneration but also as a starting point for collaborative governance. In this article, it is considered how co-creation pathways may lead to innovation in current local governance structures and achieve transformational change. This paper analyzes the collaborative governance dynamic models at three points in time in the three cities. It is also considered how co-creation pathways may lead to innovation in current local governance structures and achieve transformational change. Keywords: nature-based solutions; shared governance; urban regeneration; governance models; urban transformation 1. Introduction Cities are finding new ways to address pressing societal and environmental challenges. Urban shared governance approaches, and models are a key part of the innovation and change needed, as it is now clear that community-led initiatives are critical for success [ 1 ]. More research, led by a practice-based approach, is needed to provide support to local authorities as they move to adopt co-created Nature-based Solutions (NBS) [ 2 , 3 ]. This continued research can lead us in unpreceded directions. For example, there currently seems to be a tendency towards the adoption of bottom-up initiatives in participatory planning, though there is a range in the approaches taken and a new openness of cities to community-led initiatives. New trends and results are beginning to show that urban transformation in spatial planning can and should progress along many diverse, unique pathways [ 4 – 6 ], including recognizing when moves away from bottom-up actions would be helpful, which can be somewhat counterintuitive. This research aims to investigate the various possibilities of governance typologies that were adopted in CLEVER Cities (a Horizon 2020 project which spans from 2018 until 2023) and to document how complex adaptations occur in cities’ governance structures over time. Specifically, we analyze the changes in collaborative governance models from the post-processing of the CLEVER Cities experiences in the three frontrunners cities of London, Milan, and Hamburg that helped fertilize the pathways for urban transition and Sustainability 2022,14, 15566. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315566 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 2 of 19 regeneration. In each city, a co-creation process has been initiated with local authorities, municipalities, academia, private actors, civil society, and citizens to support the effective urban regeneration processes that respect each city’s context [ 7 ]. CLEVER Cities project also has six fellow cities that adopt the urban greening processes of the three frontrunners with less structured co-creation processes. An in-depth perspective is given on aspects of shared governance and Urban Living Labs (ULLs), especially those related to large-scale urban regeneration projects that aim to achieve both in-depth local stakeholder empowerment and community-wide involvement [ 8 – 10 ]. Herein, ULLs are intended not just as a vehicle for place-based urban regeneration but also as a starting point for more collaborative approaches towards shared governance. In response to local contexts, such as existing social structures and local institutional arrangements, different governance models evolved accordingly. Following a Multi-level Perspective [ 11 ], within each of the three cities, an examination was made of the range of integrated collaborative governance models that emerged and the changes and adaptations observed at three points in time during the process: at its initiation, mobilization, and at its consolidation phases. The first phase of the co-creation process aimed to establish an Urban Innovation Partnership (UIP), which was comprised of local clusters of stakeholders and formed using some form of partnership. During the co-design and subsequent phases, each city’s ULLs’ developed their own collaborative governance models based on the specific circumstances encountered. Throughout the research materials and methods section, an analysis of the development of the integrated collaborative governance models is explored and then mirrored in the following sections based on the narratives from London, Milan, and Hamburg. We pose the questions: How have diverse pathways moving towards integrated collaborative governance led to more complex and adaptive governance approaches? As well as to what extent do the recurrent models of shared governance from different cities have correlations with their social and spatial contexts in the settings of their respective co-creation processes? In the last section, discussions and conclusions are drawn from the processes of developing integrated collaborative governance frameworks over the three phases. 1.1. Literature Review “Governance is a negotiation mechanism for formulating and implementing policy that actively seeks the involvement of stakeholders and civil society organizations besides government bodies and experts. It is a model of decision-making that emphasizes consensus and output and that claims to be participatory” [12]. Shared urban governance in cities is a critical component of improving urban sustainability through innovative urban transitions [ 13 ]. Shared governance systems will typically differ due to the context in which they are formed, the internal relationships established, and perhaps most importantly, the level of citizen engagement. This can range from being informed to being fully empowered, as described on the ladder of participation [ 14 , 15 ]. More collaborative forms of governance are especially important, considering the challenging times we face related to climate change and the need for significant, validated actions [ 16 – 18 ]. The recent shift toward empowering the community is not based on methods where local knowledge is extracted by outsiders, but instead, it is shared by the community that engages in the problem-solving processes from the start [ 19 ]. Co-governance can be understood in its functional sense as “processes and structures of public decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” [ 20 ]. There are multiple possible pathways forward as cities adapt their governance networks to deal with new system contexts [ 21 ]. In the case of NBS projects, while intuitively regarded as necessarily bringing multiple benefits through their implementation, they still must respond to the local influences and the unique starting conditions [ 22 , 23 ]. There are many drivers that will influence the pathway forward, and based on Emerson and Nabatchi [24], these may include:
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 3 of 19 •Local issues and resources. •Policy and legal frameworks. •Participatory culture and history of relations in the community and project partners. •Network characteristics of previous iterations of socio-political organization. •Political dynamics and power relations. With respect to governance, cities have to cope with the multiplicity of contemporary challenges and complexities, and this has led to many organizational rearrangements in order to establish appropriate network relationships. To begin to deal with the vastness of climate change prevention, mitigation, and adaptation actions, scholars have started to incorporate the concept of urban transition as a needed paradigm to address critical changes in the urban environment [ 5 ]. Urban transitions are conceived as “complex, longterm uncertain and contested processes of radical change in urban systems,” processes that are not manageable with traditional policy-making and incremental changes [25–27]. Urban transition governance, hence, describes an attempt to find an equilibrium between self-organized urban systems and the idea of planning for the achievement of shared societal goals. In this sense, it creates the key conditions for mobilizing and steering urban actors [ 28 , 29 ] and their resources toward long-term sustainability and resilience goals increasing the ability to respond to change [ 25 ]. Therefore, urban transition governance refers to the concept of building capacities among the urban actors in specific contexts; in this article, these contexts are the ULLs. ULLs are dynamic containers for changes in the urban public domain; see also [30,31] . Puerari et al. [ 32 ] give a spatial definition for ULLs as “embedded sites for co-creation of knowledge and solutions” by conducting local experiments and hence are an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where novel solutions can be experimented with. They represent sites that allow different urban actors to design, test, and learn from socio-technical innovations [ 33 ]. However, despite the recent proliferation of ULLs in the European policy sphere, the underlying process through which ULLs generate and diffuse new socio-technical knowledge beyond their immediate boundaries has been challenging, and it remains to be examined how they can contribute more fully to urban sustainability transitions [34]. 1.2. Setting the Context The CLEVER Cities project (See the CLEVER Cities project page https://clevercities. eu/—accessed on 18 November 2022) has been active since 2018, experimenting with the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) in three front-runner cities and six fellow cities. Among other H2020-funded projects (e.g., proGIreg, UNaLab), CLEVER Cities aims at implementing NBS by adopting a co-creation approach as an integral part of the project development, leading to the establishment of collaborative governance frameworks [ 7 ]. The specific focus of CLEVER Cities lies in tackling the social inclusivity and cohesion dimensions of NBS implementation within the existing urban context. The intervention areas are located in socially disadvantaged neighborhoods experiencing various forms of marginalization, and NBS implementation is expected to produce positive impacts in these areas. Two main levels of decision making are recognized. The first level corresponds to the Urban Innovation Partnership (UIP), describing an overarching network of actors coordinating the overall activities of the CLEVER Cities project in each of the three cities. The second is the CLEVER Action Labs (CALs), which is a nested sub-structure of the UIP that focuses on specific spatial areas with stakeholder groups that were either similar to the UIP, partially overlapped that of the UIP, or that had some common stakeholders. The CAL represents the ULL within the CLEVER Cities project nomenclature. As co-creation processes evolved, the need to identify, strengthen and build stakeholder partnerships in order to develop community-based and validated Urban Living Labs became the initial driver towards the creation of the first collaborative networks in each of the cities: London, Milan, and Hamburg. The way each partner city started the process of connecting with stakeholders led the projects down specific organizational pathways that had to bridge
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 4 of 19 the working relationship between UIPs and CALs. This eventually led to functioning governance structures that, in general, could not be classified as simple, one-level networks. The changes in network relationships in the UIPs and Living Labs were able to help bring transformational learning, relational thinking, and transparency needed for the ULLs to advance their goals. Networks can adopt different strategies which either alter the internal workings of the organization or strive to maintain some independence and form intra-network relationships that play a role in developing both deep and wide community engagement. A range of network characteristics has been observed, and it was necessary to expand the list of reference typologies not only to describe subtle variations in nodal relationships but also to develop a full spectrum from highly top-down networks to horizontally grouped networks to understand how governance structures move up and down this spectrum. As the project progressed, adaptations and changes occurred, and as each iteration occurred, new governance constellations evolved, but there were some clear patterns in the ULLS of all three cities. It is hoped that these can offer insights into possible, successful strategies for the development of co-governance structures in other contexts. In the case of the Urban Innovation Partnership in London led by Peabody (a Londonbased housing association) in partnership with the Greater London Authority (GLA), contextual issues specific to the South Thamesmead region set the way forward for initial engagement, co-creation, and the eventual governance structures that emerged. One key factor was the limited level of existing social structures encountered, coupled with consultation fatigue and general distrust towards top-down projects. Some limited trials with community-led development have begun to revert this general picture, and together with CLEVER Cities, we now see the growth of a burgeoning culture of participation in the area. Also important was the relatively compact institutional context with one main landholder, Peabody, clearly setting the framework for the governance networks that developed. Both Hamburg and Milan had unique conditions for the new UIPs that were developed, but as the projects evolved, similarities in governance structures would also be noticed. 1.3. Integrated Collaborative Governance Framework Set-Up As governance systems evolve along a pathway, the move towards more collaboration brings with it a number of essential changes. These changes not only better prepare the actors for needed urban transformations but also support higher levels of participation [ 15 ] by creating trust and the conditions for cross-boundary engagement and dialogue. These are evolving changes and adaptations, based on Emerson and Nabatchi [24], that include: •The creation of the context for transformational learning of urban actors. •Involving agents to utilize and reach new levels of relational or systems thinking. •Changes in responsibilities for the day-to-day management. •Changes in the degree of collaboration in the decision-making process. • Adaptations in networks, network roles, and intra network relationships that alter locus and distribution of decision-making power. •Differences in the flow of information , including how it is filtered, weighed, validated, and approved. •Building of trust through principled engagement and increased transparency. In general, a move towards more collaborative governance will, more often than not, involve a move from a top-down starting point to a network typology that is more horizontally organized (see governance network models in Figure 1and in Supplementary Materials, Figure S1). This will help to include more community knowledge, new perspectives, and added motivation to the decision-making process without losing a level of clear responsibility for day-to-day management activities. Most urban regeneration projects follow some variation of this. As a project with initial sole source funding, the CLEVER Cities urban living labs all had some component of migration from a system that had top-down characteristics to something that was less structured.
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 5 of 19 Sustainability2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW5of20 horizontallyorganized(seegovernancenetworkmodelsinFigure1andinsupplementary Materials,FigureS1).Thiswillhelptoincludemorecommunityknowledge,newperspec‐ tives,andaddedmotivationtothedecision‐makingprocesswithoutlosingalevelofclear responsibilityforday‐to‐daymanagementactivities.Mosturbanregenerationprojectsfol‐ lowsomevariationofthis.Asaprojectwithinitialsolesourcefunding,theCLEVERCities urbanlivinglabsallhadsomecomponentofmigrationfromasystemthathadtop‐down characteristicstosomethingthatwaslessstructured. Figure1.integratedgovernancemodelsmovingtothemiddleground(left:top‐down,right:bot‐ tom‐up);seealldetailedmodelsinsupplementarymaterialsandnotebelow.Source:TheAuthors. Note:Thenetworktypespresentedarenotfullmapsbutshowtypicalrelationshipsbetweenlead actors(orangesquares),gatekeepers(orangediamonds),enablers(orangetriangles),mediators (greencircles—notshownhere),andactorsgivensometop‐downappointedfunction(orangecir‐ cles)ordelegatedfunctionsbypeers(doublebluecircles).Doublecircles,ingeneral,showactorsor groupsthathavebeengivenadministrativeorotherfunctions,andlinethicknessisusedtoillustrate thatinformationflowsvaryinintensity. However,itisalsopossibletoseeamovefromabottom‐upstartingpointtoamodel whichmayinvolveaslightlymoreformalstructure.Forexample,aloosenetworkofcom‐ munitygroupsorstakeholderscouldbenefitfromworkingwithanentitythateitherhas aspecializationinleading,organization,ormanagementorbyvotingordelegatinga group(s)totakeontheseactivities.Bringinginspecializedorganizationsthatcanguide andaidinthecollaborativeprocesscanbeanimportantprocesstocreateacontextof learningbydoingandcapacitybuildingthatcanhelpguaranteethesurvivalofthenet‐ workintothefuture. Co‐governancerequiresnotonlyengagingpeopleacrossdifferentspheresandsilos toaccomplishmorethanstandarddecision‐makingprocesses[20],butitalsorequiresa processofmaturationthatistypicallyneededinordertobuildupthecapacitiesinanet‐ work,includingkeyrolesandresponsibilities.Furthermore,thesenetworksneedtobe bothadaptableanddevelopasenseofpermanencethatextendsbeyondthestrictlimits oftheprojectathand[35].Asstakeholderrelationshipsbecomemoreequalandhorizon‐ tal,transformationallearningandrelationalthinkingarepromoted.Thesearedirectlytied totheprocessofdealingwithdifferentandvariedperspectives,adoptingnewroles,and takingonmultipleresponsibilities.Alterationsinnetworkrelationshipsareanintegral partofthedevelopmentofco‐governance.Asstakeholderrelationshipsbecomemore Figure 1. Integrated governance models moving to the middle ground ( left : top-down, right : bottomup); see all detailed models in Supplementary Materials and note below. Source: The Authors. Note: The network types presented are not full maps but show typical relationships between lead actors (orange squares), gatekeepers (orange diamonds), enablers (orange triangles), mediators (green circles—not shown here), and actors given some top-down appointed function (orange circles) or delegated functions by peers (double blue circles). Double circles, in general, show actors or groups that have been given administrative or other functions, and line thickness is used to illustrate that information flows vary in intensity. However, it is also possible to see a move from a bottom-up starting point to a model which may involve a slightly more formal structure. For example, a loose network of community groups or stakeholders could benefit from working with an entity that either has a specialization in leading, organization, or management or by voting or delegating a group(s) to take on these activities. Bringing in specialized organizations that can guide and aid in the collaborative process can be an important process to create a context of learning by doing and capacity building that can help guarantee the survival of the network into the future. Co-governance requires not only engaging people across different spheres and silos to accomplish more than standard decision-making processes [ 20 ], but it also requires a process of maturation that is typically needed in order to build up the capacities in a network, including key roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, these networks need to be both adaptable and develop a sense of permanence that extends beyond the strict limits of the project at hand [ 35 ]. As stakeholder relationships become more equal and horizontal, transformational learning and relational thinking are promoted. These are directly tied to the process of dealing with different and varied perspectives, adopting new roles, and taking on multiple responsibilities. Alterations in network relationships are an integral part of the development of co-governance. As stakeholder relationships become more equal and horizontal, transformational learning and relational thinking are promoted. These are directly tied to the process of dealing with different and varied perspectives, adopting new roles, and taking on multiple responsibilities. In each of ULLs in the three cities, it was noted that co-governance does not only mean moving away from command-and-control systems but may also involve adaptations that change bottom-up organizations as well. What is perhaps the most important change in governance are moves from the extremes of either top-down or bottom-up systems to a relative “middle ground” of participation in which a ‘structured horizontal’ or ‘delegated
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 6 of 19 horizontal’ systems are most commonly utilized. This necessarily pushes stakeholders to learn to work with other types of urban agents: governmental agents collaborating with grassroots community groups or community members learning to work with technical or agency stakeholders. 2. Materials and Methods The principal methodology utilized was a cross-comparative study of the process of evolution of governance networks in the three frontrunner cities of the Horizon2020 funded CLEVER Cities project, London, Milan, and Hamburg. Desktop research was conducted to gather the main information, screening through official documents and reports produced within the project framework. For each ULL, an analysis has been conducted with respect to conceptual models and typologies, leading to observations of possible trends and tendencies that led to stronger collaborative governance. The typologies were derived and substantially expanded on from a small sample from Kenis et al. [ 36 ] and presented as a spectrum of typologies (supplementary material). Among the plethora of actors’ roles present in the literature, this paper focuses on few key ones to describe the network relations in shared governance typologies following a relational approach [ 37 ]. Relationship analysis in networks was used as the main theoretical framework for the conceptualization to study the different configurations along three identified snapshots in time of the decisionmaking process, namely Initiation, Mobilization and Adaptation, and Consolidation (terminology based on [ 38 ]). Furthermore, to identify those aspects observed in the living labs that have the potential to be extrapolated to other cities and contexts. Instead of trying to describe the individual network structures of the UIPs and ULLs, an extensive range of variations on governance models was developed and laid out in a spectrum from the most top-down to the most bottom-up structures. Though not every possible variation is represented, the spectrum developed provides a relatively comprehensive reference from which it is possible to compare how governance networks can move along the spectrum from top-down to bottom-up (or the inverse) during the development process. In each of the three phases observed within the CLEVER Cities co-creation processes, see more [ 39 ], the cities compared their organizational structures to the spectrum to observe the evolution of the governance typologies for the major iterations to better understand the pathway that led to the consolidation stage. 2.1. Initiation Phase In these initial stages of the process, each front-runner city needed to evaluate the contextual drivers that would help determine the key components to their approach to stakeholder mapping and the possibilities for both deep and wide engagement. The loose negotiations that can occur during the initiation phase were reflected in the evolving goals and semi-structured decision-making processes. Decisions in this first phase were often made from a technical, top-down perspective with only small inputs from community representatives. Early consultations occurred informally through already existing networks. As the framework conditions became clearer, the decision-making structures that initiated the process started to change to adapt to the new findings. The nearer to the end of the project, the network became more stable, and the decision-making methods became more consolidated. During this initial phase, the process of developing more collaborative governance structures roughly followed an adapted version of the first steps of Hölscher et al. [ 25 ] Stewarding, Unlocking, Transforming, & Orchestrating procedures couched in Emerson and Nabatchi 0 s [ 24 ] description of adapting governance. As mentioned above, an analysis of the project context is what determines the approach taken by the co-creation team, and it starts each ULL on its own pathway. Next, two main actions determine possible adaptations in the existing networks, which could move the dialogue to a more relational collaborative space and pursue the goals of the CLEVER Cities project. These actions include:
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 7 of 19 •Unlocking : dismantling organizational resistances and lock-ins that have led to noncollaborative path dependencies. •Designing or Orchestrating : consider how creating and managing changes in the current multi-actor governance processes can foster improved synergies and selforganization and minimize trade-offs and conflicts across scales and sectors. This process is usually focused on the networks that are already somewhat locked in and showing resistance to change. In some cases, new networks or connections need to be created to start to move the overall relationships to a more collaborative state. The final step of this phase was the establishment of the UIP in each of the three cities. The initiation phase transitioned into the mobilization and adaptation phase, when stakeholder mapping was mostly finished, and a preliminary version of the probable decision-making structures had been developed. 2.2. Mobilization and Adaptation Phase During this phase, the CLEVER Action Labs were defined, and the co-creation processes started. ULLs experimented with setting up the first functioning versions of community-led decision-making processes. Carrying on from the first phase, existing networks were often tapped into for wide-reaching engagement. New governance structures that were being proposed and tested were most often moving towards more empowered forms of engagement. Eventually, initial forms of networks for both UIPs and CALs were put into practice for both detailed engagement and for reaching out to the wider communities. During the mobilization phase, networks undergo their last changes to their configurations in response to the various obstacles encountered. This can translate into the inclusion of new actors due to the shortage of resources or to solve possible conflicts among actors and overcome lock-in situations. Important actors in this phase are typically the mediators with their capacity to bring in new perspectives or to strengthen already existing relationships; see also [ 40 ]. Decisions in this phase are therefore related to rearrangement or changes in key actors to reach shared decisions on the interventions. However, observations from the project areas of the three cities show that the first network arrangement would not remain fully stable until the end of the project, and new nodes and/or new roles would still come into existence until quite late in the process. 2.3. Consolidation Phase At this phase, experimentation and adaptation lessen, and the collaborative arrangements of the networks gain a sense of relative permanence. During consolidation, the second half of Hölscher’s et al. [ 25 ] adapted model comes into play. Two more key processes helped to consolidate collaborative arrangements: •Adapting and Replicating : from feedback loops creating and spreading new strategies or applying successful models when these are more apt. •Stewarding in Systems : supporting continuous learning and system dynamics capacities that lead to behavior-changing cycles, including evaluation and feedback. This could include gaining experience and training, consolidating the rules and norms of the stakeholders, and other forms of systematizing relationships. These processes led to co-governance models that were capable of carrying forward the bulk of the project’s decision-making processes. 3. Results The networks present in the UIPs of the three cities as they moved towards consolidation are depicted in Figures 2–4, and Table 1highlights the key aspects of the UIPs that came into place during the co-creation process. The roles of the actors are defined according to the relational approach, i.e., focusing on the actual type of tie between the actors composing the network under analysis. We identified the following roles: leader (actor that has a coordinating function); enabler (actor that is able to mobilize or activate further actors); mediator (actor that moderates between two or more actors); gatekeeper
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 8 of 19 (actor that prevents or blocks other actors to enter in the process) [ 41 ]. For the sake of this article, these four actors’ roles demonstrated sufficient to analyze the network structure in the case studies. Sustainability2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW9of20 demonstratesthatpathwaystocollaborativegovernancecanbevaried,butamovetothe middletendstofacilitatesharedgovernance.Lookinginabitmoredetailateachofthe cities,wecanobservesomecommonalitiesanddistinctions. Itisimportanttonotethattheaboveandfollowingfiguresarenotnetworkmapsbut typologieswhicharepositionedinrelativefunctionalrelationshiptooneanother.These figures,therefore,donotshowtheexactnumberofstakeholdersthatparticipatedbutra‐ therthetypesofrelationshipsthatdevelopedineachcity’slivinglabs.London’score partnershiphadaninitialtop‐downcomponentinthatPeabodySeniorManagementfirst approvesacontractwhichisthentakenon(delegatedresponsibility)bytheLandscape& PlacemakingTeam.TheTeamwasopentocreatingarelativelyhorizontalgovernance structuretogetherwiththeotherpartnersinCLEVERCities,includingtheGreaterLon‐ donAuthority(GLA)andGroundworkLondon.Fromthatpointon,Peabody’sSenior ManagementTeamwasmadeawareofkeymilestones,butthedecision‐makingprocesses progressedinawaythatexploredsignificantlevelsofcommunityparticipation.Thus,the projectmovedfromwhatwouldtypicallybeatop‐down,technicallybaseddecision‐mak‐ ingstructuretoonewithcommunitymembersasco‐clients.Thistypologyshown(inthe consolidationphase)inFigure2describesthepartnershipformedbetweenPeabody,the CLEVERCitiesorganizations,andtheCommunityDesignCollective(CDC),thelatterof whichwascomprisedofadiverserangeofcommunitymembers.GroundworkLondon eventuallyoccupiedtheroleofanenablerworkingdirectlywiththeCDCtofacilitatethe engagementprocessandinterfacewiththedesignteam. Figure2.IntegratedcollaborativegovernancemodelsdepictedinLondon.Source:Bradley.Note: InSouthThamesmeadwheretheULLswereimplanted,Peabodywasdevelopingmostprojects followingstandardconsultationmethods.Withthepreviousworkinanotherneighborhood(the Moorings)andthenewCLEVERCitiesULLs,newmodelswerebeingtestedthatincludedresidents earlieronintheprocess,withawiderscopeofinvolvementandmoresignificantpowersoverde‐ cisions. Othersatellitenetworkswerebroughtintotheprocessthroughdifferingprocesses. Localemergentgroupswereguidedandsupported,forminganetworkofsocio‐environ‐ mentalgroupsthathadoverlappingmembersandcommunityspacesandlooseinternal connections.Forexample,agroupcalledTheNatureForumwaspartofakeynodal changewhentheirroleevolvedfromtheinitialconceptionasapossibledesignpanelto Figure 2. Integrated collaborative governance models depicted in London. Source: Bradley. Note: In South Thamesmead where the ULLs were implanted, Peabody was developing most projects following standard consultation methods. With the previous work in another neighborhood (the Moorings) and the new CLEVER Cities ULLs, new models were being tested that included residents earlier on in the process, with a wider scope of involvement and more significant powers over decisions. Sustainability2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW11of20 Figure3.IntegratedcollaborativegovernancemodelsdepictedinMilan..Source:Mahmoud.Note: theMilanesecasestudywasmainlyledbythemunicipalityasthemainleadactorofthepolycentric network.Moreindepth,thefacilitationagency(Eliante)developedamoreintermediaryroleas agreedwithinallpartnerstoenhancetheco‐creationprocessflow.TheUniversityplaysaneutral thirdpartnerroleinthenetworktosupportthetoolsandmethodologicalapproachinco‐creation adoptedintheoverallpathwaytowardsanintegratedgovernanceprocess,seehttp://guidance.clev‐ ercities.eu/(accessedon22November2022)byMorello&Mahmoud,(2018)fromPolimi. InHamburg,astructurewithsomesimilaritiestoLondonandMilanwasputin place.AnappointeddepartmentwithintheDistrictPublicAdministration(Department fortheeconomy,construction,andenvironment)wasgiventheleadrolefortheproject activities;theirgoalwastostreamlinetheactivitiesatalocallevelincompliancewiththe projectrequirements.Otherpartnersintheprojectwereinchargeofmediatingbetween theadministrationandthelocalactivities,suchasthecommunityplanningagencyand theuniversities[43]. ThiscoregroupisrepresentedinthemiddleofFigure4.EachULLwithintheHam‐ burgcasefollowedadifferentprocessaccordingtothestepstakentoactivateactorsand thetypeofNBStobeco‐created.ULL1focusedonagreencorridorinwhichseverallocal groupswerecoordinatedbytheUIPtorealizesmallinterventionsfollowinganoverall strategyforimplementation.Here,thepublicadministrationwasresponsiblefortheco‐ ordinationofalleffortsandbuildingpermissions.Theplanningagencyactivatedlocal groupsandbroughtthemonboard,whiletheuniversitywascoordinatedandprovided inputsforlocalinnovativeactivities. Figure 3. Integrated collaborative governance models depicted in Milan. Source: Mahmoud. Note: the Milanese case study was mainly led by the municipality as the main lead actor of the polycentric network. More in depth, the facilitation agency (Eliante) developed a more intermediary role as agreed within all partners to enhance the co-creation process flow. The University plays a neutral third partner role in the network to support the tools and methodological approach in co-creation adopted in the overall pathway towards an integrated governance process, see http://guidance. clevercities.eu/ (accessed on 18 November 2022) by Morello & Mahmoud, (2018) from Polimi.
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 9 of 19 Sustainability2022,14,xFORPEERREVIEW12of20 Figure4.IntegratedcollaborativegovernancestructuredepictedinHamburg.Source:Arlati. Note:theHamburgcaseismainlyledbyanetworkcomposedoftheDistrictPublicAdministration andtheCommunityplanningagency.Theformerhadanoverallcoordinationrole,whilethelatter wasresponsibleforactivatingfurtherlocalactors(suchastheschoolcommunityinULL3).Other projectpartners,suchastheuniversitiesandtheMinistry,contributedwithadditionaltheoretical knowledgeandlegalaspects. InULL2.1,focusedonagreenfaçadeforsocialhousingproject,thegovernance modelwaslaidoutinamoretop‐downfashion.Inthiscase,thehousingcompanyheld themostpowerinthedecision‐makingprocess,butthroughthemediationofthepublic administrationandplanningagency,theyputinplaceaparticipatoryprocesstodeter‐ mineprincipalelementsofthefaçade,suchastheformandthetypeofvegetation.The otherpartofULL2.2wasconcentratedonstormwatermanagementactivities.Inthiscase, manysmallNBSinterventionswererealizedintheareainaprocessledbytheMinistry oftheEnvironment,withthePublicAdministrationinterveningforbuildingpermits.Cit‐ izenswereinvolvedpost‐implementationduetothehightechnicalityofthesolutionsto monitortheactualeffectivenessoftheinterventions. Theschoolyardproject(ULL3)presentedthemostbottom‐upconfiguration.Thepro‐ jectpartnersestablishedlinesofcommunicationwhichledtothepossibilityofobtaining fundingtorealizeNBS.Theschoolshadastrongleadingroleinguidingtheprojectwith theirideas.Theprocesswasconductedamongthelocalactorswiththemediationofthe planningagencyandtheuniversity,withouttheactualinvolvementofthepublicadmin‐ istration. Tosumup,thenetworkstructurethatresultedfromthedifferentexperiencesinthe Hamburgcasepresentsahighdegreeofdiversificationaccordingtotheactorsinvolved inthespecificprojectsandthetypeofNBSrealized.Thefinalschemeformsapolycentric structureinwhichitscentersarenotstronglyconnectedandarenothierarchic.Atthe sametime,allactorswerekeptincontactthankstothemediatorsandtheguidingroleof thepublicadministrationsothatallwereinvolvedorcouldcontacttheothers.Inthecases ofULL1andULL3,therewereevensomecommoneventsandco‐designactivities. Figure 4. Integrated collaborative governance structure depicted in Hamburg. Source: Arlati. Note: the Hamburg case is mainly led by a network composed of the District Public Administration and the Community planning agency. The former had an overall coordination role, while the latter was responsible for activating further local actors (such as the school community in ULL3). Other project partners, such as the universities and the Ministry, contributed with additional theoretical knowledge and legal aspects. Table 1. Comparative analysis of the three city structures across their co-governance schemes. Leadership Key Starting Approach Core Typology Scheme Polycentric Characteristic Principal Pathway London UIP (Lead: Peabody housing association with GLA CLEVER Cities lead) Community building/trust building Lead + enabler + appointed partnership + network Yes, central partnership with three satellite networks. Designing + strengthening intra-network connections. Milan UIP (Lead: Directorate of urban planning, Municipality of Milan) Municipality appointed stakeholders + manifestation of interest from local community and experts Lead + enabler + appointed partnership + network Yes, central partnership with three satellite networks. Designing + strengthening intra-network connections. Hamburg UIP (Lead: Department for the economy, construction, and environment) Institutional stakeholder mapping Lead + mediator + Appointed partnership + network Yes, central partnership with four satellite networks. Creating/strengthening internode connections. It can be seen that although different governance networks were in play, the connections between networks tended to involve a lead or principal grouping that had more responsibility in making final decisions and satellite networks that reached out into the larger community. Thus, polycentric relationships were present in all three cities after our analysis. Having a core network connected to other networks is an example of a hybrid solution that helps keep decision-making structures in the middle ground between top-down and bottom-up systems.
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 16 of 19 include community knowledge and guidance. In contrast, it can also lead to a conservative resistance to change by avoiding or postponing more radical alterations to core networks. In either case, there are a few key means by which intra-network connections are made and/or strengthened. These include: •The formation of common nodes or stakeholders. •Interaction points where networks come together for discussion and cooperation. •Loose, informal connections through common meetings and social events. •Common enablers or delegated leads that act in different networks. • Organizational connections, either such as association or government-led connections. Together these processes start to demonstrate the level of complexity possible in forming the loose constellation of networks that are central to collaborative governance. The CLEVER Cities ULLs demonstrate that in a few short years, significant adaption and change in governance models are possible along many paths. 5. Conclusions The co-creation processes can act as a catalyst for the formation of new collaborative governance structures, which can lead to a transformation for the organizations involved in the process. Contrary to the commonly advocated path of moving decision-making processes to the most horizontal, grassroots state possible, it is the middle ground of shared governance typologies that offers the best balance for collaboration. It is in the middle where horizontal management blends with management skills and formalized procedures and documentation. The CLEVER Cities project provided the opportunity to observe how people and organizations can change as co-creative urban regeneration occurs. It also demonstrated that in order to develop the correct roles, relationships, information flows, and decisionmaking processes, relatively complex network adaptations emerge and change at each stage within the process. Furthermore, these do not tend to lead to a singular governance network form but rather parallel developments that include role changes in network nodes, the reworking of whole sections of a network relationship, and, most interestingly, the evolution of polycentric networks. The latter is a solution that helps preserve certain network characteristics and power dynamics while adding new capabilities. In all three cities, a core network was connected to satellite networks, demonstrating a tendency for this type of project with funding from a centralized source, such as the case in CLEVER Cities. All three Urban Innovation Partnership interventions indicate that collaborative governance cannot be simply designed at this scale. Rather, it is necessary to accept that community, private sector, and government actors will come together through a range of processes creating a complex constellation of stakeholders that will allow for the full range of participative roles. This requires a paradigm shift from purely technical thinking towards finding common ground for collaboration. Both individual actors and stakeholder groups form the connective links between networks, where community knowledge is collected and shared. Governance structures that are solely top-down and supported by control-based strategies lose their adaptative capacity, although not all decision-making is necessarily collective and non-hierarchical. This paper argues that there are concurrently top-down, designed network formation processes and bottom-up organic social networking process that led to the hybrid complex networks found in the CLEVER Cities ULLs. Furthermore, there are many pathways toward more collaborative forms of shared governance, which will arise from the system context. As long as the process allows for change and adaptation and there is a move from the more extreme top-down or bottom-up typologies, positive transformational change will occur, and richer and more widely validated decision-making processes will start to take hold. Finally, it is important to reinforce the importance of ULLs and to create the mechanisms by which the learnings from these contexts can be expanded, diffused, and upscaled. Co-creation and collaborative governance are intimately entwined, and both are
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 17 of 19 core aspects of creating the transformations needed for more sustainable, inclusive, and resilient cities. Future research will look at implemented co-governance models within the different phases of co-creation (co-implementation and co-development) that followed in order to comparatively assess a possible trend for change over time of collaborative governance towards urban transition. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142315566/s1, Figure S1: Range of Governance Network Structures. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.B. and I.H.M.; Methodology, I.H.M. and A.A.; Validation, S.B., I.H.M. and A.A.; Formal analysis, I.H.M. and A.A.; Investigation, S.B. and I.H.M.; Resources, A.A.; Data curation, S.B. and I.H.M.; Writing—original draft, S.B. and I.H.M.; Writing— review & editing, S.B., I.H.M. and A.A.; Supervision, S.B. and I.H.M.; Project administration, I.H.M.; Funding acquisition, I.H.M. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This document has been prepared in the framework of the European project CLEVER Cities. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 innovation action program under grant agreement no. 776604. The APC was partially funded as of: 10% from HafenCity Universität, 30% by Politecnico di Milano and the rest of 60% by CLEVER Cities project under grant agreement no. 776604. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Results in this research are mainly Data covered in https://clevercities.eu/ resources/deliverables-and-reports/ (accessed on 18 November 2022); see also https://clevercities.eu/ fileadmin/user_upload/Resources/D5.3_Governance_business_and_finance_models.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2021). Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the revisions made by Knud Erik Hilding-Hamann, Senior Specialist, Innovation & Digital Transformation, Danish Technological Institute; and Liliane Hobeica, Post-doctoral researcher at PPGTAS/UCSAL (Brazil) and research collaborator at RISKam/CEG/ULisboa (Portugal). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Disclosure Statement: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References 1. Kiss, B.; Sekulova, F.; Hörschelmann, K.; Salk, C.F.; Takahashi, W.; Wamsler, C. Citizen Participation in the Governance of Nature-based Solutions. Environ. Policy Gov. 2022,32, 247–272. [CrossRef] 2. Peker, E. Re-Thinking the Production of Urban Built Environments in the Face of Climate Change. Urban Res. Pract. 2020 ,13, 465–471. [CrossRef] 3. Zingraff-Hamed, A.; Hüesker, F.; Albert, C.; Brillinger, M.; Huang, J.; Lupp, G.; Scheuer, S.; Schlätel, M.; Schröter, B. Governance Models for Nature-Based Solutions: Seventeen Cases from Germany. Ambio 2021,50, 1610–1627. [CrossRef] 4. Boonstra, B.; Boelens, L. Self-Organization in Urban Development: Towards a New Perspective on Spatial Planning. Urban Res. Pract. 2011,4, 99–122. [CrossRef] 5. Kabisch, S.; Koch, F.; Gawel, E.; Haase, A.; Knapp, S.; Krellenberg, K.; Zehnsdorf, A. Urban Transformations: Sustainable Urban Development through Resource Efficiency, Quality of Life and Resilience; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; ISBN 9783319593241 . 6. Horcea-Milcu, A.-I. Values as Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation: Two Pathways for Transformation Research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2022,57, 101205. [CrossRef] 7. Mahmoud, I.; Morello, E. Co-Creation Pathway for Urban Nature-Based Solutions: Testing a Shared-Governance Approach in Three Cities and Nine Action Labs. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Ludlow, D., Baranzelli, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 259–276. ISBN 9783030577643. 8. Scholl, C.; de Kraker, J.; Dijk, M. Enhancing the Contribution of Urban Living Labs to Sustainability Transformations: Towards a Meta—Lab Approach. Urban Transform. 2022,4, 7. [CrossRef] 9. Bulkeley, H.; Coenen, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Hartmann, C.; Kronsell, A.; Mai, L.; Marvin, S.; McCormick, K.; van Steenbergen, F.; Voytenko Palgan, Y. Urban Living Labs: Governing Urban Sustainability Transitions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016,22, 13–17. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 18 of 19 10. Bulkeley, H.; Marvin, S.; Palgan, Y.V.; McCormick, K.; Breitfuss-Loidl, M.; Mai, L.; von Wirth, T.; Frantzeskaki, N. Urban Living Laboratories: Conducting the Experimental City? Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2019,26, 317–335. [CrossRef] 11. Geels, F.W. Multi-Level Perspective on System Innovation: Relevance for Industrial Transformation. In Understanding Industrial Transformation; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 163–186. 12. García, M. Citizenship Practices and Urban Governance in European Cities. Urban Stud. 2006,43, 745–765. [CrossRef] 13. Brink, E.; Wamsler, C. Collaborative Governance for Climate Change Adaptation: Mapping Citizen–Municipality Interactions. Environ. Policy Gov. 2018,28, 82–97. [CrossRef] 14. Dall’O’, G.; Bruni, E. Green Planning for Cities and Communities: Novel Incisive Approaches to Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Milan, Italy, 2020; ISBN 9783030410711. 15. Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969,35, 216–224. [CrossRef] 16. Voytenko, Y.; McCormick, K.; Evans, J.; Schliwa, G. Urban Living Labs for Sustainability and Low Carbon Cities in Europe: Towards a Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,123, 45–54. [CrossRef] 17. Pusk’as, N.; Abunnasr, Y.; Naalbandian, S. Landscape and Urban Planning Assessing Deeper Levels of Participation in Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes—A Literature Review of Real-World Cases. Landsc. Urban Plan. J. 2021,210, 104065. [CrossRef] 18. van der Jagt, A.P.N.; Smith, M.; Ambrose-Oji, B.; Konijnendijk, C.C.; Giannico, V.; Haase, D.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Pintar, M.; Železnikar, Š.; et al. Co-Creating Urban Green Infrastructure Connecting People and Nature: A Guiding Framework and Approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2019,233, 757–767. [CrossRef] 19. Rock, J.; McGuire, M.; Rogers, A. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Co-Creation. Sci. Commun. 2018,40, 541–552. [CrossRef] 20. Sebastian, I.; Jacobs, B. The Emergence of Relationality in Governance of Climate Change Adaptation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Climate Resilient Societies; Brears, R.C., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1287–1319. [CrossRef] 21. Egusquiza, A.; Cortese, M.; Perfido, D. Mapping of Innovative Governance Models to Overcome Barriers for Nature Based Urban Regeneration. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019,323, 012081. [CrossRef] 22. Tozer, L.; Hörschelmann, K.; Anguelovski, I.; Bulkeley, H.; Lazova, Y. Whose City? Whose Nature? Towards Inclusive NatureBased Solution Governance. Cities 2020,107, 102892. [CrossRef] 23. Tozer, L.; Bulkeley, H.; van der Jagt, A.; Toxopeus, H.; Xie, L. Catalyzing Sustainability Pathways: Navigating Urban Nature-Based Solutions in Europe. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2022,74, 102521. [CrossRef] 24. Emerson, K.; Nabatchi, T. Collaborative Governance Regimes; Radin, B.A., Ed.; Public Man.; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-1-62616-254-9. 25. Hölscher, K.; Frantzeskaki, N.; McPhearson, T.; Loorbach, D. Capacities for Urban Transformations Governance and the Case of New York City. Cities 2019,94, 186–199. [CrossRef] 26. Rink, D.; Kabisch, S.; Koch, F.; Krellenberg, K. Exploring the Extent, Selected Topics and Governance Modes of Urban Sustainability Transformations. In Urban Transformations; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 3–20. [CrossRef] 27. Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Dewulf, A.; Biesbroek, G.R. Transformational Change: Governance Interventions for Climate Change Adaptation from a Continuous Change Perspective. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017,60, 558–576. [CrossRef] 28. Loorbach, D.; Wittmayer, J.M.; Shiroyama, H.; Fujino, J.; Mizuguchi, S.D. Governance of Urban Sustainability Transitions, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2016; ISBN 9784431554257. 29. Wittmayer, J.M.; Avelino, F.; van Steenbergen, F.; Loorbach, D. Actor Roles in Transition: Insights from Sociological Perspectives. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017,24, 45–56. [CrossRef] 30. Cortinovis, C.; Olsson, P.; Boke-Olén, N.; Hedlund, K. Scaling up Nature-Based Solutions for Climate-Change Adaptation: Potential and Benefits in Three European Cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022,67, 127450. [CrossRef] 31. Mahmoud, I.H.; Morello, E.; Ludlow, D.; Salvia, G. Co-Creation Pathways to Inform Shared Governance of Urban Living Labs in Practice: Lessons from Three European Projects. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021,3, 690458. [CrossRef] 32. Puerari, E.; de Koning, J.I.J.C.; von Wirth, T.; Karré, P.M.; Mulder, I.J.; Loorbach, D.A. Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustain. Putt. Sustain. Transit. Into Spat. Socio-Cult. Context 2018,10, 1893. [CrossRef] 33. Deserti, A.; Real, M.; Schmittinger, F. Co-Creation for Responsible Research and Innovation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 9783030787325. 34. von Wirth, T.; Fuenfschilling, L.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Coenen, L. Impacts of Urban Living Labs on Sustainability Transitions: Mechanisms and Strategies for Systemic Change through Experimentation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019,27, 229–257. [CrossRef] 35. Provan, K.G.; Kenis, P. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008,18, 229–252. [CrossRef] 36. Kenis, P.; Schol, L.G.C.; Kraaij-Dirkzwager, M.M.; Timen, A. Appropriate Governance Responses to Infectious Disease Threats: Developing Working Hypotheses. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 2019,10, 275–293. [CrossRef] 37. Emirbayer, M. Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. Am. J. Sociol. 1997,103, 281–317. [CrossRef] 38. Lelong, B. Durchsetzungsprozesse in Der Stadtentwicklungspolitik. In Durchsetzungsprozesse in der Stadtentwicklungspolitik; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 15–33. 39. Mahmoud, I.H.; Morello, E.; Rizzi, D.; Wilk, B. Localizing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Co-Creation of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS): Towards an Assessment Framework for Local Governments. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures; Bears, R., Ed.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-3-030-51812-7. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022,14, 15566 19 of 19 40. Obstfeld, D. Getting New Things Done: Networks, Brokerage, and the Assembly of Innovative Action; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-0804760508. [CrossRef] 41. Nyström, A.-G.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M.; Kortelainen, M. Actor Roles and Role Patterns Influencing Innovation in Living Labs. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014,43, 483–495. [CrossRef] 42. Mahmoud, I.; Mahmoud, I.H.; Morello, E.; Vona, C.; Benciolini, M.; Sejdullahu, I.; Trentin, M.; Pascual, K.H. Setting the Social Monitoring Framework for Nature-Based Solutions Impact: Methodological Approach and Pre-Greening Measurements in the Case Study from CLEVER Cities Milan. Sustainability 2021,13, 9672. [CrossRef] 43. Rodl, A.; Arlati, A. A General Procedure to Identify Indicators for Evaluation and Monitoring of Nature-Based Solution Projects. Ambio 2022,51, 2278–2293. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Mahmoud, I.H.; Sejdullahu, I.; Morello, E. Milan’s ULL Co-Design Pathway to Spread Green Roofs and Walls throughout the City. In Change the Future Together: Co-Creating Impact for More Inclusive, Sustainable & Healthier Cities and Communities; Digital Living Lab Days; ENoLL: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; pp. 288–295. 45. Lawless, P.; Pearson, S. Outcomes from Community Engagement in Urban Regeneration: Evidence from England’s New Deal for Communities Programme. Plan. Theory Pract. 2012,13, 509–527. [CrossRef] 46. Arlati, A.; Rödl, A.; Kanjaria-Christian, S.; Knieling, J. Stakeholder Participation in the Planning and Design of Nature-Based Solutions. Insights from CLEVER Cities Project in Hamburg. Sustainability 2021,13, 2572. [CrossRef] 47. Frantzeskaki, N.; Bush, J. Governance of Nature-Based Solutions through Intermediaries for Urban Transitions—A Case Study from Melbourne, Australia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021,64, 127262. [CrossRef]