How to support communities in the long-term sustainability transition: The tailored empowerment program

How to support communities in the long-term sustainability transition: The tailored empowerment program Diana Dushkova *, Olga Ivlieva , Candice Pouget and Marie Vandewalle Department of Conservation Biology and Social-Ecological Systems, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research –UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig 04318, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] DD, 0000-0001-9651-0715; OI, 0009-0004-8152-5972; CP, 0000-0002-2955-1581; MV, 0000-0003-3619-9763 ABSTRACT Communities around the globe face numerous challenges. The complexity and interwoven nature of such challenges highlight the need for multiple locally tailored sustainable solutions. While at a global level various policies, strategies, and mechanisms have been designed, they often are not adapted to local specifics. Frequently established in a top-down manner, they can create barriers to implementation (e.g. insufficient understanding and ownership, mismatch of vision between local communities and decision-makers). To address this issue, the Tailored Empowerment Program (TEP) was developed to (1) support and empower communities in realizing their long-term vision for a sustainability transition and (2) to rethink the role of science in assisting communities by facilitating access to the best available scientific and policy knowledge. Through raising awareness, fostering participation, and building capacity to co-create contextualized sustainable solutions, TEP enables communities to become agents of change. The paper introduces the TEP concept as a sustainability transition pathway, integrating nature’s potential, scientific evidence, and local knowledge through co-creation. It outlines the TEP’s added value, provides an approach to its application, and discusses practical aspects of TEP operationalization, monitoring, and evaluation of TEP’s impact from sustainability and empowerment perspectives while addressing its limitations and potential for the future. Key words: blue-green transition, capacity building, empowerment, nature-based solutions, participation, sustainability transition HIGHLIGHTS •The study introduces the framework of the Tailored Empowerment Program (TEP). •A methodology for the development of the TEP framework and its application is provided. •An approach for monitoring and evaluation is suggested to assess TEP’s impact from both sustainability and empowerment perspectives. •The future potential and challenges associated with co-developing and implementing TEP are discussed. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). © 2025 The Authors Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 210 doi: 10.2166/bgs.2025.049 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION Around the world, communities are impacted by a variety of global challenges, including extreme weather associated with climate change, loss of biodiversity, increased pressures from urban development and tourism, as well as land degradation, and changes in traditional and cultural practices (Albert et al. 2019;IPBES 2020;UNDP 2023). Since these challenges are intertwined and very complex, it is urgently necessary to develop multiple, integrated, and flexible solutions for sustainability and resilience. This situation led to governments and scientific communities rethinking the existing policies and strategies, as well as reassessing the distribution of responsibility among various stakeholders. In particular, a range of international and EU regulations (e.g. EU Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Biodiversity Strategy, and UN Paris Agreement), along with various innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. European Investment Bank’s program, Horizon Europe, Green Deal, and LIFE þprograms), strategies, agenda, and plans (e.g. UN General Assembly (2015) –SDGs, EU National Adaptation Plans, and Biodiversity plans) as well as concepts and approaches (blue-green infrastructure – BGI, ecosystem-based approach, and nature-based solutions (NBS)) have been established to address these pressing challenges. For better integration of these policy instruments into regional and local agendas, it is particularly important to incorporate the social dimension and address sustainability issues more holistically, while also taking into account the opinions of local communities. For example, regarding urban ecosystems, the recently adopted EU Nature Restoration Regulation (Law) replaces rigid quantitative targets with a more flexible approach, requiring member states to foster a continuous increase in urban green areas until a satisfactory level is achieved. This regulation further underscores the importance of co-creation (engaging local communities in decision-making processes) which is considered essential for the success of nature restoration projects. Local communities often possess valuable insights and have a vested interest in the outcomes, making their inclusion crucial for the sustainability of restoration efforts. The Nature Restoration Regulation distinguishes itself from many of the aforementioned environmental policies as it mandates binding enforcement, rather than merely encouraging voluntary actions, which often limits regional implementation. This emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to sustainability that incorporates environmental, economic, and social dimensions. To ensure that the social aspect is strongly promoted, it is essential to listen to local community opinions and foster participatory approaches. Moreover, several studies show that communities often lack a shared sustainability vision, tailored strategies to integrate this vision into regional and local policies, and the necessary resources and capacities for its effective implementation (Wittmayer et al. 2014;Frantzeskaki et al. 2016;Castán Broto et al. 2019;Kapsalis & Kapsalis 2020). Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 211 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 To tackle these challenges, a range of user-driven methodologies has been developed, integrating research and policy with the aim of fostering innovation by collaboratively sensing, testing, and refining complex solutions in real-life contexts through stakeholder involvement (Bulkeley et al. 2016;von Wirth et al. 2019). Among them are Living Labs (Bulkeley et al. 2016;Gerlitz et al. 2024), Transition Labs and Transition Super-Labs (Nevens et al. 2013;Schönwälder 2021), Real-world Labs (Wanner et al. 2018;Bergmann et al. 2021), Resilience Labs (Frantzeskaki 2019) and Sustainability Transition Labs (Wiek et al. 2017;McCrory et al. 2020). While they showcase successful cases in implementing NBS and achieving sustainability, these initiatives primarily focus on experimentation in urban settings, leaving rural areas largely overlooked. Similar existing approaches such as collaborative adaptive management (Scarlett 2013;Fernández-Giménez et al. 2019), community-based natural resource management (Armitage 2005;Reid 2015), and ecosystem-based management (Tallis et al. 2010), primarily focus on sustainable management of ecosystems through stakeholder collaboration and iterative learning, aiming to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives. They combine both top-down and bottom-up approaches where scientific and local knowledge is enriched by each other through participation. However, these approaches have limitations, such as limited stakeholder participation in decision-making and strong influence from powerful entities (Reid 2015;Fernández-Giménez et al. 2019). Their focus is mainly on the environmental dimension of sustainability, while its social and economic components often remain out of scope. Additionally, these approaches frequently rely on scientific evidence to understand ecosystem dynamics and primarily focus on informing communities rather than actively engaging and empowering them. This reliance often fails to achieve genuine community engagement and empowerment, undervaluing local knowledge and risking the loss of local identities and a sense of ownership. Without participatory activities, scientific knowledge is poorly integrated into the local context, leading to limited outcomes that fail to drive behavioral change or support the sustainability transition effectively. In order to address the complexity of these issues and the need for diverse policies grounded in a strong participatory approach, alongside the growing research on living labs and community empowerment, the EU Horizon Europe project EmpowerUs has emerged (https://empowerus-project.eu/). The project aims to enhance the resilience of coastal communities by co-creating integrated, flexible, and empowering solutions that support their transition toward sustainability. EmpowerUs recognizes the importance of combining scientific evidence with community knowledge and active participation. For this purpose, a new framework called the ‘Tailored Empowerment Program’(TEP) has been co-developed to provide a robust synergy between research impacts and community engagement. This framework emphasizes the value of co-creation, knowledge co-production, capacity building, and reflexive monitoring and evaluation within the processes of solutions’development. Moreover, it also enables the exploration and analysis of empowerment processes and outcomes. With this in mind, TEP can be defined as a sustainability transition pathway, comprising a combination of actions and empowerment tools tailored to the specific context of each Living Lab (called a Transition Coastal Lab in the EmpowerUs project –TCL). TCLs represent case study sites for developing new knowledge through co-creation processes that engage communities in planning, designing, real-life testing, and evaluating solutions toward sustainability transition. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to: (1) highlight the role of key concepts within the TEP; (2) introduce the TEP framework and the approach to implement it; (3) explain TEP’s added value in the sustainability transition context and its benefits for NBS and BGI projects; and (4) discuss the conceptual and practical aspects of TEP framework, including limitations and directions for future research. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how to better integrate local knowledge with scientific evidence and foster community participation in sustainability transition. Local knowledge refers to the community’s understanding, skills, and expertise gained through direct interaction with the environment (IPBES 2019;Smith et al. 2024). Specifically, it encompasses empirical knowledge during communities’cultural practices to sustain their livelihood and connects with the community’s values and belief system (Smith et al. 2024). Local (also called traditional) knowledge is recognized as a valuable social resource in community-centered development (IPBES 2019;Kurniawan et al. 2023). In doing so, the presented TEP approach aims to support communities in becoming active agents of change who drive the blue-green transition. Moreover, the paper also reflects on the challenges and opportunities of TEP application in blue-green transition projects such as those realized within the case studies, considering aspects of planning, design, and management. It also explores the current and potential impact of TEP on the community (especially from the empowerment point of view) and environment. By combining multiand transdisciplinary Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 212 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 approaches, the TEP framework provides a systemic and holistic view of blue-green transition mechanisms, specifically focusing on societal challenges and opportunities to overcome them within the transition process. However, TEP not only delivers co-created blue-green solutions to societal challenges, but also contributes to awareness raising, spreading literacy and education, and building capacity of communities toward sustainability and resilience. The paper is organized into several sections: after introducing the methodological approach, the data used in the research, and study area characteristics, we emphasize the need for the TEP and its added value compared to existing empowerment programs. We then present the main theoretical background that the TEP framework is based on, followed by a brief description of its application. More details on methodological and practical guidance for TEP’s co-design and co-implementation are provided separately (see Dushkova & Ivlieva forthcoming). Finally, we discuss the conceptual and practical aspects of the TEP implementation, its innovativeness, and the main lessons learned as well as reflect on its limitations and future research directions. Overall, the paper focuses on the theoretical aspects of the TEP and its co-development process, while real-life implementation results are still ongoing. The latter will be the focus of future research. 2. METHODS 2.1. EmpowerUs project and study area The EmpowerUs project aims to support coastal communities in building sustainable and resilient futures by combining scientific evidence on sustainability transitions with a strong participatory approach focused on achieving its highest level –empowerment. This approach enables the TCLs to represent the visions of the communities and embeds them into practical solutions to achieve particular sustainability goals in an inclusive and participatory manner. In EmpowerUs, TCLs serve as important demonstration sites (Living Labs) for developing new knowledge through co-creation, emphasizing active community engagement in processes of real-life testing, sharing of information, and enhancing capacity. The TCLs’network is represented by six labs, covering diverse coastal EU regions and contexts (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Finland, Norway, and Spain) (Figure 1,Table 1). Although each TCL has its own set of challenges, there are some common issues that often characterize coastal communities. Among those challenges are socio-economic (outmigration, lack of jobs, housing crisis), socio-cultural (identity risks, lack of integration), environmental (climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution), and governance-related (regulatory gaps, funding difficulties). All six TCLs are established within the project through Figure 1 |Study area (www.empowerus-project.eu). Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 213 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 Table 1 |Main characteristics of the case study sites (TCLs) (obtained from questionnaire survey and follow-up working sessions with the TCLs) TCL and its location The main challenges to be addressed by TEP Stakeholders involved in TEP co-creation Træna, Norway Socio-economic: housing crisis, outmigration, lack of business opportunities, poor connectivity, ageing population, few jobs for youth, future power shortage, high construction costs, difficulties in obtaining loans Socio-cultural: limited social integration, high population turnover Environmental: climate extremes (more storms and rain), biodiversity loss (species migration and loss, invasive species) Governance/regulation: problems with municipal budgets Local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Connemara, Ireland Socio-economic: outmigration, limited employment opportunities, housing crisis, ageing population, limited road access, remoteness, weak social enterprises Socio-cultural: lack of awareness of locals of social financial opportunities, the risk for local identity and Irish language, human resource needs for cooperatives Environmental: increasing pressures from Blue Growth, need for environmental monitoring, climate change, tourism impact Governance/regulation: limited access to public funds, under-used/government-owned assets, bureaucratic funding mechanisms Regional government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs, social enterprises Burgas, Bulgaria Socio-economic: outmigration of young people, lack of business opportunities, reduction in fish resources Socio-cultural: lack of education, lack of active civic participation Environmental: growing urbanization pressures, need for coherent urban blue-green system and connectivity, weather extremes, urban heat, coastal erosion, over-tourism Governance/regulation: governmental uncertainties (regulatory gaps), lack of coherent strategies, topdown governance National government, local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Cap de Creus, Spain Socio-economic: lack of generational replacement in fishing, privatization of the sea and the coast, poorly managed closures, job insecurity (migrants) Socio-cultural: loss of maritime cultural and gastronomic heritage, need for knowledge improvement on nature, environment and marine ecosystems Environmental: overexploitation, climate extremes, impacts of wind farms, sea pollution, tourism impacts, lack of ecosystem monitoring, low selectivity of fishing gear Governance/regulation: lack of maritime and coastal surveillance Local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Åland, Finland Socio-economic:fish resource conflicts between tourism operators and professional fishers, lack of knowledge on the users of fish resources, their catch and business providers, local food production at risk Public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs (Continued.) Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 214 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 a multi-actor co-creation approach that involves relevant community stakeholders (e.g. academia and research organizations, public authorities and decision-makers, local businesses linked to the Blue economy, and civil society –NGOs) in the development of the TEP. In general, each TEP is aimed to achieve the following bluegreen transition goals: sustainable resource use, better coastal management with a focus on ecological sustainability, participatory planning and governance, economic resilience, nature-based tourism, social integration, and improved human–nature relationships. Thus, TEP supports the transition of coastal communities toward socio-ecological resilience and sustainability in both the shortand long-term: - Short-term, through the implementation of sustainable solution(s) (called ‘pilots’to test these co-developed solutions within the project’s lifetime); - Long-term, through the iterative implementation of the entire TEP (which includes other sustainability solutions to be implemented during and after the end of the project). The implementation of the activities within the TEP is supported by the empowerment tools that are defined as instruments and sets of instructions (e.g. NBS, social innovations, co-creation tools) to perform specific sustainability-related actions while addressing coastal challenges. Therefore, co-developed sustainability transition pathways and empowerment tools within the TEP will help community stakeholders identify and implement effective sustainable alternatives. In total, six TEPs were co-developed (one per TCL) with the local communities, contributing to: (a) Capacity building through skill development and tailored educational materials, (b) Improving the understanding of barriers and enablers for sustainability transition, and (c) Strengthening community participation and co-development of sustainable solutions through NBS and other blue-green projects. 2.2. Research design The research was conducted in four phases (Figure 2). In order to establish the TEP framework (phase 1), we started with a semi-systematic review of both scientific and gray literature, focused on conceptualizations and methodological approaches developed and applied within the existing community empowerment programs aimed at sustainability transformation and resilience (for more details see Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024). The objective was to explore the key needs for such programs (i.e. the main challenges faced by communities) and how they intersect with key European policy priorities. Additionally, it also involved identifying the strategies and approaches to sustainability transformation employed in such programs and their main outcomes for Table 1 |Continued TCL and its location The main challenges to be addressed by TEP Stakeholders involved in TEP co-creation Socio-cultural: different social, cultural, economic, and environmental values between different users of the sea Environmental: endangered reproduction in spawning areas, reduced fish populations, potential overuse of the fish population, land use conflicts Governance/regulation: conflicts between different groups of interest, bureaucratic barriers and unclear regulations for fishing activities, international multilevel governance that impact traditional life-mode, lack of coordination of nature conservation Eastern Limassol Socio-economic: industrial pressure, poor connectivity between communities and the coast Socio-cultural: need for an eco-centric local community development, influential stakeholders lobby Environmental: impacts of waste management factory, Vasilikos energy center, marine aquaculture Governance/regulation: top-down strategic decisions, risk of high-rise developments without appropriate planning, non-appreciation of the ecological and social importance of the coastal area National government, regional public authorities, local government, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 215 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 empowerment. It allowed us to summarize and synthesize the main themes, concepts, methods, and perspectives that have been applied within the community empowerment programs toward sustainability and resilience. Furthermore, it enabled us to reveal and critically analyze the gaps to be addressed within our TEP framework. The prototype of the TEP framework, its primary structure, and general approach for its application have been discussed with experts in the field of sustainability transformation. This allowed the identification of the fields for iterative improvements to ensure that the suggested TEP framework is scientifically robust and the approach for its implementation is clear and easy to use by the community. Moreover, the TEP prototype was presented to and discussed with a broader research community (including interand transdisciplinary expertise) at international conferences, workshops, and through consulting experts to validate the framework and strengthen its scientific robustness. As a final product, the conceptual backbone of the TEP (its prototype) was developed. The synthesis of the results obtained through the literature review and discussions with scientific communities supported the refinement of a TEP theoretical framework and a step-wise approach for its application (phase 2). To identify the TCLs’challenges to be addressed by the TEP, a baseline assessment was organized from December 2021 to January 2022 and included an online survey (UFZ responsible) and on-site in-depth interviews (Queen’s University Belfast responsible –see Flannery et al. (2023)). They were conducted among the representatives of the TCLs from academia and research organizations public (NGOs) and private business companies. The online survey template consisted of three sections (personal information, main challenges faced by TCL communities, and comments) with 14 questions (both closed and open) (see Survey Template S1 in the Supplementary material). Some questions were weighted using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0, meaning that the challenge is not relevant at all, to 5, indicating that the challenge is extremely relevant (meaning it is afirst-priority challenge to be addressed by the community). In order to approve, contextualize, and gain indepth knowledge regarding the TEP operationalization, a case study method was applied. This method allowed us to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the TEP framework across different geographical and socio-cultural contexts using six TCLs as case studies (see Table 1). During a series of both on-site and online EmpowerUs project meetings (including steering committee meetings, general assemblies, workshops, webinars, and discussion slots) with the TCLs’representatives, the TEP framework was validated and refined, and guidance for its application was proposed. As a result, an initial theoretical TEP framework and a ready-to-use guidance for its co-development and co-implementation with the local communities were established in December 2023, along with a timeline for upcoming activities. The latest phase (phase 3) includes the practical implementation of the TEP with the local communities using the guidance developed within phase 2 (six steps to follow). Within the frame of the EmpowerUs project, two Figure 2 |The research design of this study. Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 216 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 series of local workshops with stakeholders in each TCL enabled the integration of new elements into the TEP development process through a participatory approach. During the first series of participatory future scenario workshops conducted in May–June 2023, representatives from each key stakeholder group in the TCLs identified and discussed challenges, as well as potential solutions and visions. Based on these results and considering scientific evidence and expert knowledge, several sustainable solutions (pilot options) to address the identified challenges were co-developed. These pilot options were presented and discussed during the second series of local workshops. As a result of deliberation processes with the local stakeholders, one pilot was selected in each TCL for further implementation as a testing phase of a part of the TEP. Additionally, to support the realization of each pilot, preliminary types and examples of empowerment tools were identified and presented during the second series of local workshops held in October–November 2023. In total, all key groups of the communities have been reached to co-develop the TEP and related sustainable solutions (e.g. NBS) following the EmpowerUs approach that ensures the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the process (based on gender, age, representation of various stakeholder groups). As a result, in Spanish TCL, a total of 21 participants took part in workshop 1 and 17 participants in workshop 2; in Norwegian TCL –22 and 20, in Irish TCL –20 and 17, in Finish TCL –9 and 8, Cypriot TCL –16 and 19, and in Bulgarian TCL –18 and 17 participants accordingly. Finally, an approach for co-monitoring and co-evaluation of TEP’s sustainability impact and its role in empowerment was established during phase 4. In order to create a set of indicators for the evaluation of TEP’s sustainability impact across all its dimensions (Economy, Environment, and Society), a narrative review of scientific and gray literature was conducted. As a result, a variety of sustainability-related indicators (e.g. core environmental, economic, place regeneration, human health and well-being, participatory planning, and governance, see Table S2 in the Supplementary material) were adapted from existing approaches to assessing NBS impact and community empowerment toward sustainability (e.g. Kabisch et al. 2016;Raymond et al. 2017; Connop et al. 2020;IUCN 2020;EC 2021;Sowinska-Swierkosz et al. 2021; and also the set of indicators identified in the review of Dushkova & Ivlieva (2024)). They were provided to the TCLs as a core set of indicators to support the monitoring and evaluation of TEP impact as well as a tailored set of indicators that have been coselected according to the specific needs of the TCLs to be applied in a participatory manner (Table S2 in the Supplementary material). These indicators aim to support the assessment of the potential and real benefits of pilots and their contributions to different dimensions of sustainability within the broader TEP. Additionally, an approach for exploring and analyzing social innovations that emerged within the TEP co-implementation has been developed (Dushkova et al. forthcoming). A series of internal project meetings, webinars, and workshops with the TCLs, as well as participatory processes within the TCLs communities (including the utilization of tailored empowerment tools), enabled iterative refinement of the whole TEP and its evaluation approach. The authors’experience from working on other projects related to sustainability transformation, co-creation, Living Labs, and NBS was used throughout the whole research framework. In particular, work within Eklipse (http://www.eklipse.eu/), RECONECT (http://www.reconect.eu/), CONNECTING Nature (https://connectingnature.eu/), Eco-Ready (https://www.eco-ready.eu/living-labs/) and other H2020 sustainability-related projects shows that the existence of stakeholders willing to become active agents in the empowerment process is an important aspect of community-based development. Through collaboration with various groups of stakeholders on co-creation and also empowering community organizations, we can state that the monitoring and evaluation of empowerment approaches (e.g. social, cultural, political, economic, physical empowerment, and especially empowerment through education) plays a crucial role. Moreover, the literature review of implemented empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) emphasizes monitoring and evaluation as critical components of most programs. These processes not only allow for the observation and documentation of changes but also demonstrate the transformative impact of the particular actions within the program. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Theoretical framework: Developing the conceptual backbone of the TEP The review of 21 empowerment programs aimed at fostering sustainability and resilience in communities (see Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) highlighted their goals, target groups, and empowerment domains, along with the primary benefits they delivered. Empowerment in these programs broadly refers to motivating individuals and communities to take action in accomplishing important goals. Four main empowerment areas/elements were identified: (a) Capacity building, (b) Self-reliance, ownership, responsibility, and independence, (c) Participation, Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 217 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 engagement, and collective action, and (d) Integration of local knowledge and values. A common, stepwise approach was observed across programs, starting with (1) awareness raising and problem identification, followed by (2) learning, training, capacity building, (3) providing better access to resources, allowing (4) enhanced community interaction and leading to (5) active participation in developing sustainable solutions and in decisionmaking, with (6) assisting by the implementation of such solutions and culminating in (7) monitoring and evaluation to assess goal achievement and the results of empowerment (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024). These areas of empowerment were considered in the development of the TEP framework and were integrated as its structural elements (Figure 3). However, the review has revealed several knowledge gaps. While there are particular examples of successful empowerment programs, a clear conceptual framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating these programs across diverse local contexts is lacking, limiting their potential for replication and scalability. A more structured and iterative approach is essential to facilitate broader adoption by the communities. The review also revealed the critical importance of understanding the value of the monitoring and evaluation aspects of the programs for assessing and demonstrating their transformative impact. A well-developed evaluation framework can provide valuable guidance to policymakers on the effectiveness of sustainable development measures. This is exactly where the TEP approach proposed in this paper can help bridge this gap. Considering the approaches used within the reviewed empowerment programs (see Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) and taking into account the gaps mentioned, we decided to theoretically base the TEP framework on four interrelated concepts: participation, empowerment, sustainability (and sustainability transition), and resilience. Additionally, two other approaches, namely NBS and empowerment tools, have been incorporated to better interlink these concepts and ensure the comprehensiveness and inner coherency of the framework (Figure 3). We believe the TEP can serve as a sustainability transition pathway in the long term, fostering innovation with nature and people to address community challenges and promote sustainability-related changes. This approach aims to ensure community resilience and empower the communities to act for these changes. Therefore, it is important to critically reflect on these core TEP-related concepts and approaches and emphasize how they are interlinked to better understand the TEP framework. Participation. Public participation (or citizen participation) is defined as a process or continuum of interactions between institutions and people, and the different governance arrangements (forms, types, and methods) that moderate them (Kiss et al. 2021;EPA 2023). It is often understood as any process that involves the public in problem-solving or decision-making, where public input is utilized to make better-informed decisions (EEA 2023). In Figure 3 |Core concepts and key structural elements of the TEP (arrows show the interlinkages between the concepts through NBS and empowerment tools). Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 218 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 Table 2 |Overview of the TEPs main characteristics (Note: Step 6: Refining the TEP iteratively is not included since it is an ongoing process and intermediate results are not yet available) TCL Step 1: Baseline assessment and Step 2: defining challenges and solutions with community Step 3: Co-developing TEP with the community and discussing pilot options Step 4: Empowerment tools to support pilots and TEP and Step 5: Implementing pilot solutions within the TEP Challenges Stakeholders involved Pilot The main goals of the TEP TEP title Empowerment aspects to be supported by the tools Potential NBS types (ongoing process) Blue-green transition Træna, Norway Socio-economic: housing crisis, outmigration, lack of business opportunities, poor connectivity, ageing population, few jobs for youth, high construction costs, difficulties in obtaining loans Socio-cultural: limited social integration, high population turnover Environmental: climate extremes (more storms and rain), biodiversity loss (species migration and loss, invasive species) Governance/regulation: problems with municipal budgets Local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Current pilot: Hooked on Træna (Bluegreen development arena) Future option 1: Sustainable and fair housing program Future option 2: BlueGreen learning environments To address the growing challenges of high turnover of inhabitants, limited transportation options, continuity of local projects and activities, and limited opportunities for young people and businesses Attractive and accessible Træna for all: better connectivity, sustainable transportation and housing, nature-based tourism, food production, and social integration (1) Awareness raising on sustainable development; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, and capacity on sustainable solutions for transportation, food production, and natural resource use; (3) Improving community access to information on sustainable transportation, housing, and tourism; (4) Enhancing collaboration between municipality and other stakeholders; (5) Co-developing inclusive blue-green solutions (1) Nature-based tourism to prevent human pressure and loss of biodiversity and boost livelihoods; (2) NBS for restoration of habitat-forming species; (3) Community garden as NBS; (4) Coastal walking paths to ensure preservation and dissemination of culture and history connecting people and nature Toward better blue-green connectivity, social integration through NBS, and less dependency on seasonal economic conditions due to more green jobs Connemara, Ireland Socio-economic: outmigration, limited employment opportunities, housing crisis, ageing population, restricted road access, remoteness, weak social enterprises Socio-cultural: lack of awareness among locals about social and financial opportunities, risk for local identity and Irish language, human resource needs for cooperatives Environmental: increasing pressures from Blue Growth, need for environmental monitoring, climate change, tourism impact. Governance/regulation: limited access to public funds, government-owned assets, Regional government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs, social enterprises Current pilot: Social enterprise support Future option 1. Community housing program for the Connemara Gaeltacht Future option 2. Planning technical aid service for the Connemara Gaeltacht To create a stronger enabling environment for social enterprises and cooperatives in the Gaeltacht area through building skills, knowledge, and capacities and; to develop more commercially viable and financially resilient social enterprises and cooperatives Social Enterprise Support Program for developing skills, knowledge, and capacities for sustainable use of natural resources of the coast, nature-based and inclusive business, sustainable housing, and community resilience (1) Awareness raising on the development of social enterprises to protect natural marine resources with economic models that prioritize the sustainable use of the coast; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, and capacities for social co-operatives and enterprises; (3) Improved community access to information and funding of social enterprises; (4) Enhancing community interaction through creating an environment for collaboration and exchange; (5) Codeveloping sustainable solutions led by social enterprises (1) Revitalization of the coast for nature-based tourism to protect biodiversity, promote human health, and strengthen livelihoods for all; (2) Nature-based recreation to support biodiversity, human health, and well-being; (3) Inclusive NBS for social housing (community gardens, rain gardens, pocket parks, for climate adaptation, social integration, place attractiveness) Toward more sustainable and efficient use of natural coastal resources through social enterprises (Continued.) Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 225 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 Table 2 |Continued TCL Step 1: Baseline assessment and Step 2: defining challenges and solutions with community Step 3: Co-developing TEP with the community and discussing pilot options Step 4: Empowerment tools to support pilots and TEP and Step 5: Implementing pilot solutions within the TEP Challenges Stakeholders involved Pilot The main goals of the TEP TEP title Empowerment aspects to be supported by the tools Potential NBS types (ongoing process) Blue-green transition bureaucratic funding mechanisms Burgas, Bulgaria Socio-economic: outmigration of young people, lack of business opportunities, reduction in fish resources Socio-cultural: lack of education, lack of active civic participation Environmental: growing urbanization pressures, need for coherent urban blue-green system and connectivity, weather extremes, urban heat, coastal erosion, over-tourism Governance/regulation: governmental uncertainties (regulatory gaps), lack of coherent strategies, topdown governance National government, local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Current pilot: Burgas on Three Lakes Future option 1: ecotourism brand ‘SymBiotic’ Future option 2: Adaptive governance and comanagement digital model for the Lakes Future option 3: Capacity building: adult ecological, climate and disaster education To tackle various challenges related to the lakes and the city of Burgas (e.g. urbanization pressures, climate change-induced extreme weather events), evolving regional and national economic priorities, and conflicting stakeholder interests Burgas on Three Lakes as a benchmark and model for nature conservation, ecotourism, sustainable coastal development, better connectivity, climate change adaptation, and ecological education (1) Awareness raising on nature conservation, restoration, sustainable use of natural resources; strengthening the lakes’value for the community; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, capacity through ecological education, citizen science, events, promoting sustainable economic models (also for tourism); improve the ability of NGOs to capture value from the blue economy; (3) Enhancing community interaction through workshops, citizen science, festivals, (4) Codeveloping sustainable solutions (wetlands restoration, ecotourism, connectivity) (1) Nature-based tourism through wetland restoration and preservation; (2) NBS that promotes recognizing wetland ecosystems value of lakes’area (wetland restoration, awareness raising, integrated ecosystem management through participatory decision-support tools); (3) Blue-green network extension to connect city and lakes area, promote community engagement and integration; (4) NBS for inclusive ecological education Toward better blue-green connectivity and environmental literacy, nature-based tourism as an alternative to current development Cap de Creus, Spain Socio-economic: lack of generational replacement in fishing, privatization of the sea and the coast, poorly managed closures, job insecurity (migrants) Socio-cultural: loss of maritime cultural and gastronomic heritage, need for improved knowledge of nature, environment, and marine ecosystems Environmental: overexploitation, climate extremes, impacts of wind farms, sea pollution, tourism impacts, lack of ecosystem monitoring, low selectivity of fishing gear Governance/regulation:lackof maritime and coastal surveillance Local government, public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Current pilot: NatureCap Digital Solution and Food Future Option 1: Sea Fair To address the pressure of maritime activities and the Blue growth; to better adapt to climate change; to support the development of more effective regulations for nature conservation; to promote inclusive and sustainable seafood gastronomy and food sovereignty in Cap de Creus Facilitating synergies to strengthen eco-social networking and crosssectoral collaboration for sustainable resource management, alignment of blue economy with biodiversity and improved knowledge of eco-social practices (1) Awareness raising on sustainable coastal development and sustainable consumption; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, and capacities for eco-social networking, crosssectoral collaboration, and ecosocial practices; (3) Improved community access to information via digital solutions and regular public events; (4) Enhancing community interaction through digital tools and relevant events; (5) Codeveloping sustainable solutions (NaturCap app, Sea Fair for eco-social networking and ecoactivism) 1) NBS for innovative ecotourism (using NaturCap app); (2) Revitalization of the coast for recreation, eco-tourism, human wellbeing, and boosting livelihood; (3) NBS to protect biodiversity (restoration of habitatforming species that act as ‘climate rescuers’, rehabilitation of the coastal and terrestrial ecosystems); (4) NBS for low-impact sustainable fisheries and restoration of habitats by engaging fishing sector Toward nature-based tourism, more sustainable management of water and coastal resources, more consolidated community Åland, Finland Socio-economic: conflicts over fish resources between tourism operators and fishers, lack of knowledge on fish resource users, their catch and business providers, local food production risks Socio-cultural: social, cultural, economic, and environmental values between users of the sea Environmental: endangered reproduction in spawning areas, reduced fish populations, potential overuse of fish Public authorities, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Current pilot: Åland fisheries appeal Future option 1. Protection of functioning spawning sites and restoration of degraded sites Future option 2. Licensing, evaluation and monitoring of tourism and recreational To develop an agenda for public, private, and fisheries sectors to address human-wildlife conflicts, household and recreational fishers; to address challenges for fishing due to species loss, in the context of EU regulations; integrate the fisheries sector in the municipalities’strategic long-term planning Improving fisheries management, including sustaining fish populations, practices, and nature conservation, and securing sustainable use of resources in Åland (1) Awareness raising on opportunities for effective sustainable fishing, existing and potential land use conflicts; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, and capacities on sustainable and traditional fisheries, nature conservation and sustainable use of resources; (3) Improved community accesses to information through fisheries areas mapping, exhibition and TCLs’exchange; (4) Enhancing community interaction through (1) NBS for ecological restoration of habitatforming species; (2) NBS for climate adaptation: rehabilitation of the coastal and terrestrial ecosystems; (3) NBS for biodiversity conservation in the special protection areas; (4) NBS to promote sustainable use of marine resources and sustainable fisheries; (5) Revitalization of the coast Toward more efficient fisheries management and nature conservation that promote traditional fisheries values Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 226 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 population, land use conflicts Governance/regulation: conflicts between groups of interest, bureaucratic barriers, unclear regulations for fishing, international multi-level governance that impact traditional life mode, lack of coordination of nature conservation fisheries Future option 3. Ålandic traditional fisheries and their lifestyle as UNESCO heritage events, exhibitions, workshops and training, interactive maps, and engaging groups that were hard to reach; (5) Co-developing sustainable solutions in fishery sectors and for restoring degraded sites for nature-based tourism to protect biodiversity, promote human health and well-being, and boost livelihoods Eastern Limassol, Cyprus Socio-economic: industrial pressure, limited connectivity between communities and the coast Socio-cultural: need for ecocentric local community development, influential stakeholders lobby Environmental: impacts of waste management factory, Vasilikos energy center, marine aquaculture Governance/regulation: top-down strategic decisions, risk of highrise developments without appropriate planning, nonappreciation of the ecological and social importance of the coastal area National government, regional public authorities, local government, academia and research organizations, private business organizations, NGOs Current pilot: The Cape Dolos Strategic Community Development Plan Future Option 1: Implementing solutions within the Strategic Development Plan Future option 2: Further implementing solutions within the Strategic Development Plan (with possible extension of Development Plan area) To address significant challenges faced by the three neighboring communities of Moni, Monagrouli, and Pentakomo, including limited connectivity to the sea and an underappreciation of the ecological and cultural significance of the coastline Coastal Master Plan for the Eastern Limassol Region to better connect the sea and the communities; to tackle conflicts between the blue economy, residential/ tourism use, and nature conservation; to adapt to climate change; to strengthen cost value (1) Awareness raising on ecological, social, and economic values of the coast and its sustainable management; (2) Developing skills, knowledge, and capacities on actions for enhancing coastal sustainability; (3) Improved community access to information through mapping socio-ecological values of the coast, community participation and exchange; (4) Enhancing community interaction through engaging various stakeholders in developing and designing Coastal Master Plan; (5) Codeveloping sustainable solutions for better connectivity to the sea (walking paths) and social integration (1) Revitalization of the coastal area for naturebased tourism and recreation to protect biodiversity, promote human health and wellbeing, and boost livelihoods (green walking path to connect mainland and coast); (2) Ecological restoration of habitat-forming species, rehabilitation of the coastal and terrestrial ecosystems; (3) Sustainable management of marine resources (incl. sustainable harvesting, sustainable land use, participatory planning and management) Toward more sustainable coastal management, climate adaptation, and better connectivity between the community and the coast Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 227 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 •The TEP of Eastern Limassol TCL (Cyprus) centers on a Coastal Master Plan to balance economic growth, residential expansion, and nature conservation while promoting participatory planning and sustainable marine resource management. Despite the differences in the local context (e.g. urban vs. rural specifics and their corresponding challenges), the TEP framework is tailored to each TCL allowing them to realize their transitional pathways toward sustainability. We can state that the common features of each TEP include: (1) sustainability (e.g. fostering long-term resilience and strengthening human–nature relationships through sustainable solutions, incl. NBS); (2) community empowerment (e.g. utilizing various empowerment tools to support capacity building, co-creation, participatory decision-making, and governance); (3) economic and social development (e.g. creating job opportunities, improving living conditions, and enhancing economic resilience). 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. Interlinkages between the key concepts within the TEP framework and the added value of TEP We developed the TEP framework based on the following key concepts: participation, empowerment, sustainability, and resilience, all of which are interlinked through NBS and empowerment tools. A review of existing empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) revealed that these concepts are associated with (1) improvement in community participation and capacity building, particularly by improving community access to information on sustainability development projects and (2) encouraging community involvement in the development of projects with shortand long-term impact and are based on inclusivity and social justice. Additionally, as stated in various studies, community empowerment has become an increasingly important aspect of sustainable development policies for both urban and rural areas (Lyons et al. 2001;Hölsgens et al. 2023;Toniolo et al. 2023). It was demonstrated that sustainable development depends on the existence of civic society’s capability for involvement, which requires community participation and empowerment (Kurniawan et al. 2023). In regard to NBS-related projects, participation, and engagement are often viewed as mechanisms to encourage or empower stakeholders, enabling them to act toward and envision sustainability (Hölscher et al. 2019; Sieber et al. 2024). Hereafter we highlight the added value of the TEP approach in comparison to existing frameworks and explain how it contributes to promoting sustainability and resilience. Specifically, it examines how TEP, as a bottom-up approach, integrates scientific and local knowledge, fosters participation through the concept of Living Lab, empowers communities in sustainability transitions, and promotes NBS. These elements position TEP as a comprehensive strategy for advancing sustainable change. 4.1.1. TEP as a strategy for community empowerment for sustainability transition TEP can be conceptualized as part of a broader empowerment initiative. Its framework was developed based on a literature review (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024), which provided the TEP theoretical backbone. During the conceptualization of the TEP framework, the authors integrated insights from this review and expert consultations, to identify several critical gaps to be further addressed by the TEP. Among them is the lack of a clearly defined conceptual framework, which limits the adaptability of empowerment programs to be designed, implemented, and evaluated in various local contexts. This deficiency hampers their potential for replication and upscaling. Consequently, the added value of the TEP framework is in addressing these gaps by proposing a more structured, accessible, and iterative approach to community empowerment, providing communities with clear guidelines to act for a change toward sustainability. The TEP framework has been discussed with various experts in the field of sustainability transition and refined accordingly. By embedding diverse empowerment tools, TEP encourages communities to act independently rather than serve as passive recipients of external solutions, thereby fostering more effective and sustainable transformative change. 4.1.2. TEP as a bottom-up approach that aligns scientific and local knowledge on sustainability and resilience As we have learned, many approaches defined as ‘community-based’(e.g. collaborative adaptive management, community-based natural resource management, or ecosystem-based management) were, in fact, externally initiated and often used as a facade for top-down management, whereas participatory planning methods, genuine community engagement, and empowerment were rarely employed (Armitage 2005;Scarlett 2013;Reid 2015; Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 228 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 O’Higgins et al. 2020). Compared to them, TEP’s distinctive feature is the active use of a bottom-up approach to ensure equal dialogue between researchers and local stakeholders. This approach provides added value in addressing the gaps identified in the frameworks mentioned above by fostering the integration of local knowledge with scientific evidence. This ensures that the local identities and expertise of communities are both acknowledged and valued, reducing the risks of ‘leaving someone behind’or underutilizing community potential. Furthermore, the use of participatory methods also allows TEP to incorporate the long-term visions of communities, co-created through dialogue between the community members and scientific representatives, ensuring that the chosen transition pathways are both sustainable and feasible. By embedding empowerment tools, suggested by researchers and co-selected with the community, TEP positions local actors as active, independent agents of change rather than passive end-users/recipients of solutions, thus facilitating more effective, sustainable, and long-term transformative change. TEP with integrated NBS contributes to the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs in multiple ways: •TEP enables simultaneously addressing both public interests and environmental aspects of sustainability; this dual impact makes the TEP framework a powerful mechanism for tackling sustainability challenges in an integrated and participatory way; •TEP calls for action from all sectors and stakeholders, including public institutions, businesses, civil society, and researchers, thus contributing to cross-sectoral collaboration and promoting effective institutional frameworks; •TEP emphasizes the critical role of local knowledge and tailored contextualized actions in sustainability transition; •TEP allows the integration of different aspects of sustainability while implementing policies and considering both synergies and tradeoffs across different SDGs; •Since SDGs often demand robust monitoring, reporting, and the use of relevant indicators to track progress, TEP provides the corresponding approach and tools (e.g. techniques and indicators for monitoring and evaluation of sustainability impact and community empowerment). 4.1.3. TEP as a sustainability transition pathway that boosts participation through the living lab approach Our experience from various sustainability-related projects demonstrates that the Living Lab model is an effective format for mobilizing community resources, stimulating participation, and testing co-created solutions within the TEP framework. Recent studies (Bergmann et al. 2021;Gerlitz et al. 2024) also emphasize the success of Living Labs in innovation testing, refining, and scaling impactful solutions. Moreover, the European Network of Living Labs was created in 2006 as an open and citizen-centric innovation ecosystem with the aim of developing a global innovation infrastructure that empowers everyone to co-create means and value with and for European citizens. However, for TEP to be fully effective, it is essential that Living Labs remain open to external actors (e.g. those outside the local community) and facilitate ongoing knowledge exchange among all project participants. In the EmpowerUs project, TCLs were created with a distinctive focus on being guided by scientific leads and hosts that represent the communities. These institutions play a vital role in mediating between the scientific community and local stakeholders, ensuring effective knowledge transfer and co-production, capacity building, and the alignment of local and scientific expertise. 4.1.4. TEP as a strategy for further promoting of NBS In its primary goal, TEP intends to produce a participatory and inclusive model for transitioning toward sustainability, considering all its dimensions (environmental, economic, and social). Given that TEP incorporates nature’s potential with economic and social capacities, it can be viewed as a strategy to foster the widespread adoption and implementation of NBS (e.g. through integrating the key IUCN (2020) criteria such as NBS are based on inclusive, transparent, and empowering governance; effectively address societal challenges; are managed adaptively, tailored to natural and cultural contexts; provide mutual benefits for both people and nature). This strategy supports optimizing local resources and community capabilities by investigating the economic, social, and ecological potential to improve ecosystem functions and enhance the delivery of ecosystem services (e.g. through the implementation of certain interventions such as NBS). By identifying and evaluating barriers and enabling factors that influence the success of potential intervention, NBS within the TEP can be a response to, or a catalyst for, social innovations that can boost community capacity for sustainable change. Additionally, by providing a set of indicators for monitoring and evaluation, TEP helps to assess the sustainability impact and Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 229 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 community empowerment resulting from NBS implementation. Furthermore, TEP can also integrate several other sustainability-related activities that are not explicitly framed as NBS. 4.2. Application of TEP framework in EmpowerUs and lessons learned for further implications The initial lessons learned from the operationalization of the TEP theoretical framework in real-life settings, such as Living Labs/TCLs, can be summarized around the following points: •The value of a shared understanding of the TEP theoretical concept among key stakeholders is crucial.Itis essential to build capacities for them, as well as for facilitators in advance. This ensures that the community has an active and well-informed think tank group that understands the core structural elements of the TEP framework and their importance in achieving the community’s shared vision. While it may not be necessary for every stakeholder to be fully familiar with the TEP framework, a collectively generated future vision can serve as a unifying element and a driving force for the whole process of change (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; Kapsalis & Kapsalis 2020). However, to ensure the smooth process of the TEP operationalization and to avoid stagnation during the initial phase, it is important to make sure that such a think tank group is knowledgeable about the TEP concept and committed to promoting it. Another important role of this think tank group is to initiate the mapping and analysis of other key community stakeholders and decide on effective ways to foster their involvement and engagement. •Unlocking the potential for a sustainability transition through the identification of its barriers and enablers.Itis important to explore barriers as hindering factors to TEP implementation, as well as analyze their interrelationships. To overcome these barriers, the corresponding enablers should be identified to boost the TEP realization. Our experience shows that the most frequently appeared barriers include lack of political will and long-term commitment, insufficient financial resources, path dependency, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, sectoral silos (institutional fragmentation), lack of public awareness, uncertainty about the benefits of the solution, as well as limited land and time availability. These barriers have also been emphasized in other studies, where a set of leveraging points/enablers were identified, such as restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in the pursuit of sustainability (Abson et al. 2017;Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018;Ershad Sarabi et al. 2019). In EmpowerUs, we primarily focus on the following groups of drivers for sustainability transition: agency and interaction (incl. creating and implementing new governance structures based on broad participation, diverse actor networks, and community empowerment) and development processes (incl. system awareness, collective visioning, practical experimentation, reflexivity, and capacity building) (that is in line with the approaches of Castán Broto et al. 2019). •Importance of co-creation/collaborative work organized in an inclusive and participatory manner. Within EmpowerUs, the flexible co-creation framework is developed that offers space, time, and thematic impulses for the processes of empowerment of coastal communities in building sustainable and resilient futures. This framework is based on co-creation principles, including respectful cooperation, and environmental and social justice, that are in line with the co-creation approaches of other studies (Nevens et al. 2013;Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018;Castán Broto et al. 2019;Dushkova & Kuhlicke 2024). Co-creation therefore is a central feature of the TEP, which serves as the foundation for its implementation. It is important to enhance capacities, skills, and attitudes that allow the stakeholders to become truly independent after the project ends. In this regard, empowerment tools play a vital role in supporting communities through their pilot actions. Furthermore, several studies conducted in different countries demonstrate that active community participation and empowerment contribute to the success of regional sustainable development (Kabisch et al. 2016;UNEP 2019). •Enabling conditions for continuous skills development, contextual knowledge co-production, and facilitating capacity building. As researchers working at the science-policy-society interface, we would recommend addressing certain knowledge gaps and competency needs within the broader community. In particular, capacity building and co-production of knowledge are central to addressing sustainability challenges. Our experience indicates that it can be achieved by embedding the following elements in the development of the TEP framework: environmental awareness raising, blue-green/ocean literacy and system thinking approaches for preparing and organizing co-creation activities. Also, mainstreaming participatory policymaking (e.g. through polycentric and more adaptive governance), expanding the capacity to undertake interand transdisciplinary research and actions, as well as continuous organizational learning, along with the institutional feasibility, can play an important role in this context (Van der Jagt et al. 2017;Frantzeskaki Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 230 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 & Rok 2018;von Wirth et al. 2019). These processes must guide further knowledge development, uptake, and application as part of an iterative and holistic process toward sustainability transformation. TEP in this regard, serves as an important tool for building capacities and fostering empowerment of the local communities for a sustainable transition. •Building more robust systems of knowledge generation and exchange that are capable of engaging a wide range of stakeholders. Sustainability-oriented interdisciplinary scientific networks should be actively engaged in capacity building. They are a vital source of new innovative knowledge that facilitates ongoing and dynamic adaptation practice. The use of a knowledge brokering mechanism, such as Eklipse, provides added value to this process by bringing together a wider range of expertise than the one present in a project’s consortium. Through the application of a robust methodology and ethical infrastructure, the synthesis of existing knowledge by an established group of experts from various scientific backgrounds allows the creation of deep evidencebased knowledge that can increase the resilience of communities in their transition toward greater sustainability. It is essential to create collaboration between social and natural scientists and practitioners, suggest and encourage extended training that strengthens scientific capacities, and develop science communication skills to improve the interaction with policy-makers and the wider community. In EmpowerUs, an interdisciplinary expert working group was established to synthesize the current state of evidence concerning the role of NBS and community empowerment tools in addressing coastal challenges (Sieber et al. 2024). •Acknowledging the variety of research community’s roles. Considering that people cannot be empowered by others, the role of researchers in sustainability transition projects (and specifically in EmpowerUs) is rather to catalyze, facilitate, and support coastal communities in recognizing and enhancing their power through a variety of existing empowerment tools while co-producing new ones. This strong participatory, multi-actor approach and transdisciplinary focus of the project is a real added value to avoid a top-down model of knowledge delivery (instead of fostering knowledge co-production). This very much aligns with the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that can only be achieved through the engagement and support from the community as a whole. However, considering the challenges in regard to the conflicting views and power dynamics, it requires a considerable endeavor from project partners and Living Labs to ensure inclusive, equitable, and just co-design and co-implementation of innovative and socially accepted sustainable solutions. Another important matter to be considered in this regard is building trust between the researchers, key stakeholders, and the wider community (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018). To achieve this, researchers should be transparent in demonstrating their interests, actions, and expectations from the collaboration with local stakeholders (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018;Hölscher et al. 2022). Research, in this context, becomes part of activities that can produce social impact. Our experience shows that researchers often play the role of mediators between different (sometimes conflicting) views and interests. Initially, they may be more actively engaged in the co-creation process, but over time their role can shift to providing consultancy on demand, supporting communities as they increasingly take ownership of sustainable solutions. 4.3. Limitations and directions for future research and application of the TEP approach Through the process of TEP development and implementation, we identified the following gaps and limitations to be addressed within future research, to which the following recommendations have been proposed: •Define in advance active stakeholders and already established networks to support the long-term perspective. The TEP concept has been developed in a specific context to align with the particular scope of an EUfunded project. Moreover, collaboration with the local community has been organized through the TCL academic lead (representative from academia and research organizations) and the host (representative from an NGO or state organization, and consulting company); thus, the communication between other members of the consortium and the broader TCL communities was mostly organized by them. Although the TEP has been mostly initiated by academia, research organizations, and NGOs, which means that the need for TEP was not coming from the broader community, this initiative represented the common vision of the community that first came from long-lasting cooperation with different groups of stakeholders. Moreover, this future vision and options/solutions to realize it were discussed, refined, and finally validated with the whole community (since the workshops, surveys, and interviews allowed to engage the representatives from each community group, considering leaving no one behind approach promoted by EEA (2023) and implemented by the EmpowerUs project. However, there is still room for testing a fully bottom-up initiative. Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 231 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 In order to address this and be able to validate the full potential of the TEP, particular scenarios for real-life applications and optimal scales should be developed, considering the aspects of ownership and long-term perspective, as well as the possible options for effective governance. The design of TEP implementation assumes that it will take place within the framework of a Living Lab (called TCLs in the EmpowerUs project), where a pool of active stakeholders has already been formed, resources have been mobilized, and the geographical boundaries of the area have been defined. Thus, the need to establish such a framework has to be considered to ensure a successful TEP application. •Critically analyze power relationships and leadership within the community and organize a co-creation process that avoids imbalances. The specifics of the context mentioned above pre-determined the existing power relationships in the communities where the TEP concept was tested. These dynamics affected the representation of several actors and their interests. As stated by Avelino et al. (2023) and Wittmayer et al. (2014), the issue of power relations is closely linked to the transformative potential of sustainability initiatives. Thus, it is important to further analyze the local socio-political dynamics of systemic change to better understand what the key roles and activities of the involved actors are and how they can evolve within the process of sustainability transition. For the successful design and implementation of the TEPs, it is essential to engage a wide range of stakeholders, sometimes with diverging, contradictory, or even conflicting interests. Mediation and conflict resolution play a critical role by providing structured and neutral platforms for dialogue and understanding. Fostering better communication and collaboration will allow stakeholders to clarify misunderstandings and reach a compromise tailored to the core needs of all parties. Trained facilitators should be involved in the development of TEPs to support this process, and to make sure that power relationships do not create significant imbalances between stakeholders. •Ensure community ownership of TEP development and design. In the EmpowerUs project, the TEP framework was tested in the context of six TCLs and validated by only two entities –the academic lead and the host. This means that feedback from a broad range of stakeholders was translated and transmitted to the project consortium through the academic lead and the host (first due to language differences/barriers). However, as pointed out by Hobson et al. (2019),Linnér & Wibeck (2020), and Toniolo et al. (2023), community ownership is one of the essential components of successful sustainability initiatives, which can also be applicable to the TEP. Our previous review of empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) also revealed that ownership and responsibility, along with participation, collective action, and local knowledge, are the key focus areas of empowerment. Thus, to achieve it, the project developed a co-creation pathway based on a multi-actor approach; additionally, a variety of empowerment tools have been identified to support the active involvement of community stakeholders in planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating sustainable development initiatives that impact their lives (Dushkova et al. 2024;Sieber et al. 2024). Studies (EEA 2021;Alemanno 2022;Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) confirm that when the community is active in developing a certain project, collectively manages assets (e.g. power grids, housing, or businesses), and takes ownership of the project in general, it tends to be more committed to its success and takes greater responsibility for its long-term sustainability. Furthermore, the set of indicators has been developed to not only support the TCLs in monitoring and evaluating the TEP sustainability impact but also to assess how the community empowerment process unfolds and which parameters can be monitored to achieve the desired outcomes. •Plan for long-term commitment and resource allocation (e.g. financial and time costs to ensure TEP cost-efficiency). From an implementation perspective, the TEP framework might require additional effort, time, and financial resources, specifically, by organizing participatory processes, engaging all stakeholders, selecting appropriate experts, and maintaining the momentum of the core active group. TEP is not designed for quick responses; its primary focus is on long-term transformation, ensuring ongoing stakeholder engagement and building capacity in communities to independently address particular challenges. One TEP can consist of different NBS with quick and visible benefits (e.g. community gardens) that require less time, effort, and funding compared to other NBS where the first benefits would be only delivered in the long-term (e.g. tree planting as NBS). As a result, the TEP implementation cycle may demand extensive time commitments, including negotiations with stakeholders, organizing participatory activities following the ‘Leave No One Behind’principle, and embedding particular sustainability interventions (e.g. NBS) within policy-regulation frameworks and cultural contexts. Additionally, financial resources are also necessary for expert consultations, training sessions, and other capacity building activities, making TEP a resource-intensive approach to foster sustainable change. Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 232 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 5. CONCLUSION This paper introduces the TEP framework as a pathway toward sustainability transition that integrates nature’s potential, scientific evidence, and local knowledge through processes of co-creation (e.g. co-designing solutions and co-producing knowledge). By reflecting on various existing approaches to supporting sustainability transitions in communities (Living Labs, collaborative adaptive management, and ecosystem-based management), we discuss the key findings from the literature review on existing empowerment programs toward sustainability and resilience (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) and the identified research gaps. Next, we demonstrate how these gaps can be addressed by the TEP concept that allows for shifting the role of the community from the end-users or passive beneficiaries of blue-green technologies (incl. NBS) to active agents of change that drive this transition. The research presents the TEP framework and its co-development process, along with an approach for its practical implementation, and demonstrates the first outcomes from its operationalization in the TCLs. Thus, we primarily focus on making a theoretical rather than an empirical contribution and demonstrate the added value of TEP by merging the conceptual approaches of participation, empowerment, sustainability, and resilience through NBS and empowerment tools. The added value of TEP refers to providing: (1) a bottom-up approach that aligns scientific outputs with local knowledge on sustainability and resilience; (2) a sustainability transition pathway that enhances participation through the living lab approach; (3) a strategy for community empowerment in sustainability transitions and (4) an approach for further NBS promotion. The paper reflects on the main lessons learned from the operationalization of the TEP framework within the EmpowerUs project, as well as on its limitations and directions for future research (e.g. the specific context of TEP development and implementation; power relationships, and leadership in the community; and community ownership). We believe that the proposed TEP framework has the potential to support a broad range of community stakeholders who seek a well-structured, suitable, comprehensive, and practically oriented approach that facilitates and fosters community empowerment toward sustainability transition. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the EmpowerUs project consortium for the productive discussions on the TEP prototype and framework. We appreciate the support of individual experts in discussing and improving the TEP framework, as well as their valuable comments. Particularly, we thank Maria Ignatieva (UWA), Dagmar Haase (HU), Harineeswari Meenakshi Sundaram (UFZ), Zora Reckhaus (UFZ), Anastasia Konstantinova (RUDN), Slava Vasenev (WURL), and Victoria Novikova-Dickey. The authors also extend their gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their helpful reviews and constructive comments. FUNDING The work was supported by the H2020 Europe Project ‘EmpowerUs: Socio-economic Empowerment of Coastal Communities as Users of the Sea to Ensure Sustainable Coastal Development’(2022–2025), Grant Agreement No. 101059957. The publication has been prepared within the UFZ Integration Platform Projects ‘Sustainable future land use. Provisioning natural resources, biodiversity, and ecosystem services’(Ecosystems of the future) and ‘Societal Transformations towards Sustainability’(Transformations toward resilient cities, Subproject Bluegreen transformation). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS D.D. conceptualized and supervised the study, developed its methodology, collected the data, conducted the analysis, validated the results, wrote, reviewed, and edited the article, and prepared the visualizations. O.I. conceptualized the study, developed its methodology, collected the data, conducted the analysis, wrote and edited the article, and prepared the visualizations. C.P. participated in the conceptualization of the study and development of its methodology, wrote and reviewed the article, and prepared a visualization. M.V. developed the initial idea for this framework, conceptualized, supervised the study, and wrote and reviewed the article. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information. Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 233 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025 CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare there is no conflict. REFERENCES Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W. & Lang, D. J. (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation,Ambio,46,30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-016-0800-y. Albert, C., Schröter, B., Haase, D., Brillinger, M., Henze, J., Herrmann, S., Gottwald, S., Guerrero, P., Nicolas, C. & Matzdorf, B. (2019) Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute?,Landscape and Urban Planning,182,12–21. Alemanno, A. (2022) Towards a Permanent Citizens’Participatory Mechanism in the EU. European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4232168. Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management,Environmental Management,35, 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z. Avelino, F. & Rotmans, J. (2009) Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change,European Journal of Social Theory,12 (4), 543–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431009349830. Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Struminska-Kutra, M., de Geus, T., Widdel, L., Wittmayer, J., Dankowska, A., Dembek, A., Fraaije, M., Heidary, J., Iskandarova, M., Rogge, K., Stasik, A. & Crudi, F. (2023) Power to, over and with: exploring power dynamics in social innovations in energy transitions across Europe,Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,48, 100758. Bergmann, M., Schäpke, N., Marg, O., Stelzer, F., Lang, D. J., Bossert, M. & Sußmann, N. (2021) Transdisciplinary sustainability research in real-world labs–success factors and methods for change,Sustainability Science,16 (2), 541–564. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F. & Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2016) Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions,Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,22,13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.02.003. Castán Broto, V., Trencher, G., Iwaszuk, E. & Westman, L. (2019) Transformative capacity and local action for urban sustainability,Ambio,48, 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1086-z. Christens, B. D. (2019) Community Power and Empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen-Shacham, E., Andrade, A., Dalton, J., Dudley, N., Jones, M., Kumar, C., Maginnis, S., Maynard, S., Nelson, C., Renaud, F., Welling, R. & Walters, G. (2019) Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling nature-based solutions, Environmental Science and Policy,98,20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.014. Connop, S., Nash, C., Elliot, J., Haase, D. & Dushkova, D. (2020) Nature-Based Solution Evaluation Indicators: Environmental Indicators Review. CONNECTING Nature Project Deliverable 20200618. Available at: https://connectingnature.eu/sites/ default/files/images/inline/CN_Env_Indicators_Review_0.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2024). Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., May, P. H., Brockhaus, M., Sari, I. M. & Kusumadewi, S. D. (2019) Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks,Global Environmental Change,54,64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003. Dushkova, D. & Haase, D. (2020) Not simply green: nature-based solutions as a concept and practical approach for sustainability studies and planning agendas in cities,Land,9, 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9010019. Dushkova, D. & Ivlieva, O. (2024) Empowering communities to act for a change: a review of the community empowerment programs towards sustainability and resilience,Sustainability,16, 8700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198700. Dushkova, D. & Kuhlicke, K. (2024) Making co-creation operational: a RECONECT seven-steps-pathway and practical guide for co-creating nature-based solutions,MethodsX,12, 102495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102495. Dushkova, D. & Ivlieva, O. (forthcoming) Tailored empowerment program to support sustainability transition: methodological and practical guidance for its design and implementation. MethodsX. Dushkova, D., Ivlieva, O., Pouget, C. & Vandewalle, M. (2024) Six Tailored Empowerment Programs. Deliverable 4.2 of EmpowerUs project (electronic document). Dushkova, D., Ivlieva, O., Vandewalle, M. & Pouget, C. (eds.) (forthcoming) Social innovations through NBS. Deliverable 4.3, Task 4.4 of the EmpowerUs project. EC –European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2015) Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-based solutions & re-naturing cities –Final report of the Horizon 2020 expert group on ‘Naturebased solutions and re-naturing cities’–(full version). Publications Office. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10. 2777/479582. EC –European Commission (2016) Topics: Nature-Based Solutions. Available at: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa. eu/research-area/environment/nature-based-solutions_en (Accessed: 12 May 2024). EC –European Commission (2021) Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A Handbook for Practitioners. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. EEA (2021) Castellari, S., Zandersen, M., Davis, M., Veerkamp, C., et al. Nature-based solutions in Europe policy, knowledge, and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Publications Office. Available at: https:// data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/919315. Blue-Green Systems Vol 7 No 1, 234 Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/bgs/article-pdf/7/1/210/1570703/bgs2025049.pdf by guest on 21 November 2025