Holistic neighbourhood development Augustenborg
This intervention has been translated into a brief governance scenario. Take a look at link to the scenario
- 1 a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
- 2 b) Additional basic characteristics, links to earlier UrbanA work
- 3 c) Actor constellations
- 4 d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
- 5 e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation
- 6 f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles
- 7 g) Reported outcomes
- 8 h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention
- 9 i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
- 10 j) Structural learning
- 11 k) Reflections on important governance concepts
- 12 Appendix 1: Three modes of governance
- 13 Appendix 2: Policy typology
a) Basic characteristics and ambitions of the intervention
1. What is the name and the urban context (e.g. city/district) of the intervention? Please also indicate the geographical scale of the intervention (e.g. neighborhood, district, small/medium/ capital city, metropolitan area ...). [Example: “Brixton Energy in Brixton, London (neighborhood in capital city)”]
This project is about a holistic neighbourhood development programme called Ekostaden Augustenborg and is located in a neighbourhood/district in Malmö, a swedish city with over 300.000 inhabitants.
It is about a holistic, sustainable development of the area which started with works on the development of a Drainage System, energy retrofitted buildings and issues around biodiversity but over the course of the project even more social, ecological and economical topics became part of it.
2. What sector(s) (alias domain/ policy field) is the intervention primarily implemented in ? [e.g. housing, mobility, energy, water, health, local economy, biodiversity, CC adaptation, etc.]
holistic sustainable neighbourhood development, community engagement
3. What is the intervention (i.e. situated experiment) aiming to achieve in terms of sustainability and justice? [If possible, please copy from a project website and give a reference]
There is a wide focus on sustainability which includes all kind of measures in different areas:
- A strong focus on energy efficient buildings (e.g passive house standards) and installation of solar panels, small scale-wind and a pilot project for the production of biogas in the district.
- The project also aims at the modification of energy related behavior and the lowering of the CO2 footprint of the residents through awareness raising and training programs as well as agreements in the rental contract
- It includes a wide variety of goals around mobility with a prioritisation of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport; the encouragement of a local use of electric vehicles and the development of a Green Line’s zero emission electric street train service as well as car-pooling among residents.
- Another string of development are goals around greening the area with an attempted increase in biodiversity and a greening of roofs.
- Another big part of the intervention was the creation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) which aimed at reducing flooding by 70% as the capacity of the old sewage and drainage system was exceeded during heavy rainfalls (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).
- The intervention also includes symbolic and demonstrative actions that help to strengthen the identity of an eco-neighbourhood:
annual environmental days or weeks, cleaning days, bike days and projects, demonstration sites, symbolic street signposts, organised visits, etc.
The intervention strongly focuses on procedural justice and to a lesser extent endemic justice as it included citizens at all stages and in some cases residents were able to directly design certain parts of the intervention.
4. What is the interventions’ timeframe?
The intervention started in 1997 and the main frame of the development lasted until 2002 (Kazmierczak; Carter, 2010).
There are other projects that continued to further the image of a eco-neighbourhood that happened a lot later e.g a lighthouse project called the Greenhouse Augustenborg, a high-rise building with a passive-house energy standard was built in 2014 (although by another construction company as one mentioned below), but the main time-span of the intervention was between 1997 and 2002.
5. By what governance mode is the intervention characterized primarily? (see Appendix 1: Three modes of governance)
It is government-led but characterised by its strong community engagement with a shift of responsibilities to community members lateron in the project, arguably developing into a more hybrid mode of governance.
6. Why do you consider it worthwhile to study and share experiences made in the context of this governance intervention for sustainable and just cities?
The intervention has been studied in an urban context in Europe and is at its core about sustainability while considering different dimensions of justice. There is a lot of media attention and the documentation by SMARTEES is very extensive. Developing a neighbourhood in an holistic, integrative way is crucial as it aims at breaking down institutional logics, as well as compartmentalised policy making leading to more sustainable and just outcomes.
7. In which project deliverable(s) or other documents can information be found on this situated (i.e. place specific) governance intervention?
- Caiati G., Marta F. L., Quinti G. M. [ed.] (2019): Report on Profiles of Social Innovation “In Action” for Each Cluster.
- Klamméus E. [ed.] (2014): Urban storm water management in Augustenborg, Malmö (2014).
- World Habitat Awards (2014): Eco-city Augustenborg, Sweden, Winner, World Habitat Award.
8. EU Project-context of the intervention:
- a. Has the intervention been developed or studied in the context of an (EU-funded?) project? (please name the project, its duration and include a link to the project website here).
It has been studied by SMARTEES - Social Innovation Modelling Approaches to Realizing Transition to Energy Efficiency and Sustainability which lasts from 2018 until 2021. https://local-social-innovation.eu/
- b. According to WP3’s database of approaches, which approach(es) does the intervention best fit under? Where applicable, please indicate if the intervention is found in a project that has been explicitly mentioned in the database.
Governance and participation processes
Governance for urban climate mitigation and adaptation
- c. Have some project deliverables been coded in the context of UrbanA’s WP4?
The deliverable by SMARTEES (https://local-social-innovation.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Deliverables/SMARTEES-D3.1_SI_in_Action_R1.pdf) has been coded, but only for the case study on Superblocks in Barcelona.
9. Problematization and priority:
- a. How exactly has inequality and exclusion been problematized (by whom) in the context of this intervention?
The area has had high rates of unemployment and multiple socio-economic problems which affects the general liveability which was problematized by the municipality.
- b. Has the achievement of justice explicitly been named as a major motivation behind the intervention?
Not directly. More in a way that life quality in the area in general is quite low in comparison to other districts of the city. It therefore is about distributional justice to give individuals similar opportunities (e.g job related) to other areas of the city and about environmental justice issues (e.g. to protect them from floodings that could not be handled well in the past due to a missing working Drainage System).
It also tackles justice as recognition as it actively focuses on a neighbourhood with a high ratio of foreigners and minorities and tries to include them in the process of the implementation.
It therefore also targets procedural justice aspects.
- c. Which drivers of injustice does the intervention address? (see Database of drivers of injustice)
c) Actor constellations
10. Who initiated the intervention?
The district renovation was promoted by the city administration together with the local public housing company (the Malmö Municipal Housing Company - MKB).
11. Who are the envisioned benefiters of the intervention? (both at a local level and higher, if applicable)
People living inside the district due to an increase of the quality of life (new leisure spaces, new green areas, new services), also due to the environmental benefits; an increase of social cohesion (e.g., new places for socialisation, etc.), the decrease of unemployment and the increase of political participation.
12. Who else is (going to be) involved in the intervention, and what was/is their main role?
|Actor types||Yes||Actor name and role|
|Civil society organizations|
|Hybrid/ 3rd sector organizations|
|For profit entreprises|
13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.
The role of certain individuals has been emphasised by the project report, as some have been particularly important to the success of the intervention. Especially important has been the enthusiasm of those individuals. Especially mentioned are: Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö Bertil Nilsson, former headmaster at the school in Augustenborg Christer Sandgren at MKB Trevor Graham, project leader since 1998
Especially in the early years of the project, there was a critical mass of people with important functions that tried to address ALL issues in the area and did not care too much if it was their responsibility on paper. This generated a belief that a holistic change of the area was possible (Interview Trevor Graham).
Furthermore “high standing people” (e.g. professors) played a crucial role in mediating and facilitating with citizens.
14. To what extent, in what form and at what stages have citizens participated in the shaping of the intervention?
Citizen participation is one of the keys to the success of this intervention.
All physical changes were discussed in advance with residents, giving them the possibility to express their suggestions and observations so as to have the possibility to adjust and modify the plan. All actions were agreed on together with residents. The involvement of citizens was carried out through a wide set of different methodologies:
- extensive public consultation, regular meetings, and permanent working groups, dialogues with experts, informal gatherings and co-design.
Important to note is the different level of participation for different parts of the project. Before the first changes were implemented, project proponents thought about which physical investment based projects have the most scope for public involvement in design and development of the project, which have opportunities for jobs etc. (Interview Trevor Graham) Some aspects of the plan were therefore co-designed by residents, as they were considered as experts and bearers of specific and territorially grounded knowledge. For other, more technical issues (like the Storm-Water system), public participation was focussed on acceptance, which still means that plans might have to be adapted, but the focus there is around creating a dialogue with the community. (Interview Trevor Graham). Initially, the green roofs (on housing buildings) had very little input from communities, but more green roofs were created when the community designed the waste-management houses (which they were in charge of) and wanted to have green roofs on them. (Interview Trevor Graham)
In total an approximate of 20% of the residents participated in the project. Several ideas of residents were completed and implemented into the neighbourhood such as:
- Developing the open storm water system in a more natural process that enhances the area’s urban biodiversity
- an after-school centre that teaches children how to take care of and respect animals (the Rabbit Hotel)
- energy consumption monitoring and active engagement in recycling and composting
- Creating and shaping public spaces into parks, allowing play areas for children and hubs for increased biodiversity
- the Café Summer, a café and meeting space for residents to discuss and share ideas
- the first car-pooling scheme of Malmö
To add: School pupils were involved in different aspects of the project e.g. the planning of a new community/school garden, rainwater collection pond/ice rink, a musical playground, and sustainable building projects incorporating green roofs and solar energy panels. One obstacle regarding public participation was the commitment of institutions over time - there were times where the housing company (MKB) or the municipality did not invest enough effort in the project which led to less public and neighbourhood interest. (see Q.23). This makes future efforts in the neighbourhood also more difficult as it hollows out trust by residents.
15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?
As this project was originally started by the local housing company and the municipality those two were in charge of it. The wide range of actors (universities, schools, citizen groups…) and the informality of the relationship between the actors was crucial for successfully developing ideas of how to change the district and which interventions to implement. As mentioned, residents had a lot of power over the nature of the intervention and were able to develop a lot of their own ideas.
- a. Which stakeholders or social groups were excluded (at which stages)?
Presumably, people who did not have time to participate in the participation process.
The area has a lot of non-Swedish speakers, the municipality has tried to include them as well (see below), but there were also voices who had a "We are in Sweden, we speak Swedish attitude”.
- b. Is there any indication why this may have happened? With what outcomes? Has anything been done to overcome such exclusions?
There are a lot of non-swedish speakers living in the area. Flyers have been printed in other languages as well as translators accompaning the participation processes which helped to include non-swedish speakers.
d) Enabling conditions for the implementation of the intervention
17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)
When the area was newly built (1948-1952) it had a high status but it started to decline in the 70´s. Many problems such as high unemployment or the flooding of basements emerged. In the 90´s the neighbourhood had a lot of social, ecological and aesthetic problems which ultimately led to a sense of urgency that something had to be done.
The trigger has been a discussion in 1997 about closing down an industrial area in the area of Augustenborg. Peter Lindhqvist from The Service Department, City of Malmö suggested to open an eco-friendly park in the area. At the same time the former headmaster of the school in Augustenborg, Bertil Nilsson, had become one of the coordinators of the Swedish Urban Program in Malmö. He contacted Christer Sandgren from the Malmö Municipal Housing Company who was the housing manager of Augustenborg and had the mission to renew the area. The three together contacted senior officers, colleagues and active residents from the area in order to create a sustainable district of Malmö. At the first meeting over 400 people showed up to talk about flooding issues, a drainage system, green roofs and a musical theme playground (MKB_01: 2). A project leader with experience in the field of transforming communities, Trevor Graham, was hired in 1998. As the project developed further; local businesses, schools and the industrial estate became a part of it.
18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along Appendix 2: Policy typology)
It does not seem that one general policy was highly crucial for the project but Augustenborg was very linked into developments of the time which affected the project in different ways (Interview Trevor Graham): In the end of the 90´s a strong focus on environmental issues with a democratic dimension was present (e.g with Agenda 21 movements) Social inclusion was a big influence and narrative of the time There were a lot of socio-economic problems present at the time in Sweden and Malmö e.g the closing down of the shipyards, integration, the difficulty of entering the labour market, general economic decline which led to a collage of redevelopment projects and policies that tried to address these issues at different scales. Augustenborg is one of these local projects and was very much tied into national and local policies of the time. (Interview Trevor Graham)
19. What constitutional responsibilities and rules does the intervention build upon? In other words, what rights, powers, and/or responsibilities, does the country's constitution (in a broad sense) award municipalities, states, utilities, NGOs, citizens etc. and how does this impact the intervention?
Swedish planning culture is trying to promote best practice examples and new technology through goal-oriented and integrated urban development (Galina 2012) An important legal framework for Sweden is the “Planning and Building Act” (1987 updated in 2010) and the “Environmental Code” (1999). The Planning and Building Act applies to all new buildings as well as reconstruction. It aims at paying attention to climate and environmental issues as well as regulating construction better and giving planning permissions within ten weeks (Galina 2012). Municipalities need to check if new developments they are planning are in accordance with the Planning and Building Act. The Environmental Code serves as an umbrella/framework for the Planning and Building Act. It also includes other special laws that concern the change of the physical environment. It aims to improve sustainability regulating the quality of water, air, land. Fig 1 shows the general planning process of Sweden. Municipalities have a planning monopoly generating comprehensive plans for their municipality. The Swedish government may overrule certain decisions if they are not in accordance with national interests (e.g. regulations or environmental goals in Planning an Building Act and Environmental Code). The city therefore has to show it meets the national guidelines e.g for air quality.
20. According to project material/and or interviews, in what ways have particularities of (local) political culture influenced the character and success of the intervention? (i.e. trust in political institutions, citizens’ will to interact with policy makers and vice versa, traditions of cooperation etc.)
Crucial was a mindset of allowing experiments, learning from mistakes and not being to uptight about mistakes which allowed for a lot of adaptivity in the project (Interview Trevor Graham) This is also connected to a will to include citizens and the knowledge that projects are more accepted if developed together with residents. It is a holistic and integrative way of planning, as for example shown by the efforts to also tackle resident’s energy consumption behaviour and not purely relying on technical solutions as well as the wide variety of topics in general. It might mean though that changes might generally take longer to implement and that certain aspects of original plans might not be implemented exactly in the way it was originally thought out to be.
In the beginning of the project a lot of people working on it shared this mindset, but as soon as certain people were not a part of the project anymore (e.g the head of a certain department changed) and other people who were not used to that mindset replaced them, flexibility and adaptivity started getting lost in the chain of command (Interview Trevor Graham). So as soon as people having a mindset of not being responsible for certain issues and being afraid of mistakes became the critical mass, this flexibility disappeared (Interview Trevor Graham).
On a more general, institutional note, Malmö´s governance system is rather decentralised which allowed for adaptability and flexibility throughout the planning, development and perpetuation of the project although working in partnerships again, is not a very well developed approach in Sweden (World Habitat Award_01)
21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?
The intervention cost a total of 200 million SEK´s (1 Swedish Krona (SEK) equals 0.095 Euro). About half of the sum came from the local housing company (MKB), the rest mainly came from the local authorities, principally the City of Malmö, in addition to several other sources which included: The Swedish government's Local Investments Programme for Ecological Conversion and Eco-Cycle Programme (SEK 24M) The Swedish Department of the Environment (SEK 4M) EU program LIFE (SEK 6M) provided funds for the creation of the Botanical Roof Garden The European Union URBAN program, A number of other sources both public and private. The extensive financial commitment by public authorities and the MKB was crucial for the success of the intervention as it was essential for long-term planning. (World Habitat Award_01)
22. Have any of the above conditions changed within the intervention’s timeframe, which have (significantly) influenced it in a positive or negative way?
The project manager of MKB changed. The new manager lacked the in-depth understanding of the case that his predecessor possessed. The Housing Company lost a lot of credibility and legitimacy in the lower hierarchy of the company and with residents. The project mostly anchored in the upper management of the housing company afterwards. A lot of other people in power changed over the course of the project which led to a change of culture around responsibilities as some of the newer people did not feel as responsible for a holistic change of the area, but cared more about their own sector. This led to a more sluggish mode of development (Interview Trevor Graham).
Note: Certain contexts, which provide opportunities to learn from other relevant experiences, may also be a supportive framework condition. Please see section h, questions 26 + 30 on learning context.
e) Obstacles to successful intervention implementation
23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:
- a. Regulatory framework
There did not seem to be many issues regarding the regulatory framework.
- b. Legitimacy
In general, the intensity to which the local community was engaged was unusual for the time and not everybody involved in the project saw the need for it and some people were actively opposed to it e.g some of the contractors architects did not see the point of involving residents (SMARTEES_01: A79.).
- c. Public awareness
Trevor Graham, project manager, calls continuity the greatest challenge of the project. In the beginning, participation has been easy as there was a wide public interest in the intervention which has faded over the years. This is closely connected to institutional commitment over time as there were times where the housing company/the municipality was less active. This generates problems in relation to a long-term belief of a process of change for local people in a “Why should I as a community member invest time and resources if the institutions pushing the project do not seem to do so” - manner. (Interview_Trevor Graham). This meant that in the beginning (first three - four years) public interest was very high and it decreased over time.
Key here seems to be a good balance between short-term change of the area (where residents see fast changes as a result of their own participation) and long-term commitment of institutions (so residents see a bigger vision behind the project and feel like their time and energy will contribute to something bigger) (Interview Trevor Graham)
In this case because of the efforts to include residents and even making them co-responsible for certain parts of the intervention public resistance was not a big issue. However there was still some resistance from some individuals.
- d. Finances
- e. Others (please name)
A lot of foreigners who do not speak Swedish live in Augustenborg which made their inclusion harder. This issue was tried to overcome with hiring translators and printing flyers in other languages.
Some residents who speak louder made their voices better heard while quieter residents issues were discussed less.
f) (Institutional) Work done to overcome obstacles
24. What has been done by each central actor group to overcome which particular obstacles in the way of successfully implementing the intervention? (this may include institutional Work - maintaining, disrupting, and creating new rules, applying to both formal laws/regulations and informal norms and expectations.)
|Name of obstacle||What work was/is being done to overcome this obstacle and by what actor groups?|
|1. Commitment over time of institutional partners (housing company, city)||This has been a huge issue that was not perfectly solved. It seems that in the beginning institutions were very committed to changing the area, but it decreased over time.|
|2. Maintaining continuity in public participation||Finding new ways “to do things” through letting go of power and making residents more responsible. This is closely connected to the issue of institutional commitment as residents also partly lost interest in the project as they did not want to spend their own time if they did not feel that the institutions commited enough. New ways of engaging with citizens in later stages also partly addressed trust issues of community members towards the municipality and the housing company.|
|3. Some of the residents not understanding Swedish||Participation flyers were printed in foreign languages and translators were hired by the municipality|
|4. Resistance from one specific resident||Project team member “casually bumping into him” and striking up a casual conversation|
|5. Louder residents issues being more heard||Wide set of methodologies of involving the public with formats that tried to give a voice to everybody|
g) Reported outcomes
25. What are reported outcomes of the intervention? This may include economic outcomes, political outcomes, ability to reach sustainability and justice targets, etc.
To name some of the most important outcomes (SMARTEES_01: A76f).:
- Biodiversity in the area has increased by 50% (The green roofs, predominantly the Botanical Roof Garden, have attracted birds and insects, and the open storm water system provides better environments for local plants and wildlife. In addition, flowering perennials, native trees and fruit trees were planted, and bat and bird boxes were installed).
- Unemployment fell from 30% to 6% (to Malmö’s average)
- The environmental impact of the area (measured as carbon emissions and waste generation) decreased by 20%
- The heat and hot water consumption has decreased by 25%.
- A small scale wind power generation in the area was installed in the local school as follow up project
- Augustenborg features the world’s first botanical roof garden, with around 9,000 m2, providing local habitat and helping to absorb rainwater
- The implementation of an open storm-water system at Augustenborg has improved not only storm-water management in the area, but also the performance of the combined sewer system that serves the surrounding area.
- There have not been any floods in the area since the open storm-water system was installed.
- Turnover of tenancies decreased by 50%
- As a direct result of the project, three new local companies have started: Watreco AB (set up by local resident and amateur water enthusiast), the Green Roof Institute, and the carpool established in 2000, which uses ethanol hybrid cars to further reduce environmental impacts
- Political interest and participation in elections have increased
h) Learning involved in establishing the intervention
Please fill in any information on social learning that has occured in this intervention (conceptualized here as “Learning context, content, and process” in line with the FOODLINKS project). Where possible, please differentiate your response into learning done by specific actor groups.
(i.e. the configuration and social environment enabling the learning process)
26. According to the TRANSIT project’s four mechanisms for empowerment – i. funding; ii. legitimacy; iii. knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support; or iv. visibility and identity – please briefly describe the following, and indicate where the intervention has been developed or supported as part of which formal collaborations, networks or projects:
- a. any previous experiences in the same urban context (e.g. city…) that the intervention is (reportedly) building upon? This could include any relevant experiences in the same or another sector.
Certain aspects of the intervention emerged when citizens learned about similar plans for other areas. It is not specified if those other areas were from other cities or Malmö (SMARTEES_01:75) This mostly targets iii) (knowledge sharing, learning, and peer support).
- b. any inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere that have (reportedly) been important in the emergence of this intervention?
There did not seem to be important inter-city partnerships existing at the time worth mentioning here.
27. Has any acquired knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge, awareness of local political procedures etc.) been reported as particularly helpful to this intervention?
- a. from previous experiences in the same urban context
Residents were eager to implement renewable energy projects and sustainable mobility ideas when they heard about similar plans from other areas. (There are no precisionas about where they got their ideas from)
- b. from inter-city partnerships, or transfers from experiences elsewhere
- c. from other knowledge gathering/research
It is very important to note that learning has also happened on an individual scale. Trevor Graham (project manager) shares stories from a Somalian gynecologist who was unemployed for a long time and then working in recycling with an employment creation project. He was given time on Fridays to explore opportunities in the health sector again and is now working as a doctor. Another story tells about a woman who was very much opposed to the idea of recycling (and that part of the project) but then discovered the car pool and became involved in it.
This also shows that these interventions can become opportunities for individuals to grow and change their lifestyles.
28. In what ways has the intervention been adapted to specific circumstances of the targeted urban context based on the learned content reported in question 27?
29. Based on your answers to question 24, how has overcoming obstacles (reportedly) contributed to the learning process?
The process of the implementation changed over the course of the project. As mentioned the greatest challenge of the development was maintaining continuity and keeping residents involved. As staff and with them priorities changed the project lost credibility and support. The project then again had to find new ways of doing things through letting residents gain more power over decision-making. Project leaders then had to accept that things will not always go the way they thought, but the new ways can be interesting and are much more diverse due to other ways of thinking by other individuals.
30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote) and the actors involved in using them.
i) Learning involved in establishing interventions elsewhere (transferability)
31. Suggestions regarding transferability.
- a. Have any suggestions been made about a replicability, scaleability or transferability of the intervention? [e.g. in the documentation of the intervention in a project or the press? Links would be perfect]
In general, the wide range of topics and fields of this intervention make it hard to speak of a replicability or transferability of the intervention. Rather single elements (e.g reducing energy efficient buildings) have been discussed and/or actually transferred.
The World Habitats Award claims that Augustenborg has become an international example for incorporating participatory processes in urban regeneration processes. (WorldHabitat_01: 09). The project is recognised by the “UN's World Habitat Award 2010” an award which only two projects worldwide receive annually.
A lot of technical elements were transferred to other contexts (see actual transferability) Trevor Graham, project manager, sees Augustenborg as a pioneer area to create more sustainable urban neighbourhoods and says that it is not enough that just Augustenborg is an “eco-neighbourhood”, but that every area in Malmö and more in Sweden and Europe should have a stronger focus on these issues. (MKB_01)
The organisation of the first “Electric Carpool” in Sweden as well as the "world's first electric road train" a zero emission electric street train service seem like they are thought to be replicated.
- b. Transferability to what kind of contexts has been suggested?
Especially to areas where people are living in similar 60´s (in sweden these are mostly areas of the “million home program”) and 70´s buildings and especially in northern european areas.
- c. Who has made the claims?
SMARTEES, The world Habitats Award, Project manager
- d. What limits to transferability to broader contexts have been discussed?
The local housing cooperative of Rosengard district in Malmö was inspired by the project in Augustenborg and wanted to start changing the neighbourhood in a sustainable way. Local people led the way there, and they tried to get help from the city. The Rosengard project lacked long-term thinking (Interview Trevor Graham) (institutional commitment) which led to a diminishing public interest over time. The crucial balance between short-term changes and long-term institutional investment was off there (Interview Trevor Graham) At one point for example the local housing company in Rosengard just informed residents about measures through info screens rather than involving and engaging them through workshops/inhabitant meetings where long term consequences of these changes could be discussed, possible fears could be mentioned etc. .
It seems that when transferring physical changes of a project it is important to also think about the governance arrangements that made these changes possible. One important actor constellation is that institutions as well as local people are willing to change the area short-term as well as invest resources on a longer timespan.
A general issue seems to be that cities are lacking jointive long-term approaches and shared visions of change, but are operating on a project by project basis (Interview Trevor Graham). This is also connected to political issues which makes these jointive ideas difficult (e.g the idea of implementing changes with a strong focus on local communities). This hinders learning in general and leads to making the same mistakes in different projects in different and even the same citiy over and over again. An example of this is the departmentalised way of engaging with communities as a lot of departments have their own unit that does so (in Malmö e.g the Highway and Parks department, the Culture department…). On a city scale these units can be brought together on a local level being an intermediary between neighbours, the city, housing companies, local companies etc. (Interview Trevor Graham) These departments then could become the core of a long-term structured development processes in a city acting as an institutionalised intermediary, transferring knowledge in and between cities. Important here is that there has to be an institutionalised way of how to organise learning on an individual level here as well and to think about which people can work in such an intermediary institution especially in times of staff change. It would be difficult to fulfill the role of this intermediary (which requires to have strong communication skills, but also an existing network in the city around businesses, other departments of the city as well as local communities) immediately after your job starts. It therefore might make sense to learn about these things beforehand as an apprentice of the more experienced people working in these intermediaries right now. (Interview Trevor Graham)
32. In what forms has the learning process, including stories of overcoming obstacles, been recorded for, and/or made accessible to city makers also from elsewhere?
The Municipal Housing company has published an online document which gives a lot of insight “behind the scenes” and shows their motivation behind the project and its different aspects. Especially the part on “Augustenborg is not enough” (MKB_01: 7-8) shows their motivation to transfer insights and ideas to other areas and highlights the pioneer role of Augustenborg. Also interesting is the part that is described in Q. 17 which is about the events that reportedly triggered the intervention (MKB_01: 2).
There are a wide number of guided study visits to the area (e.g “40 French city officials”) (MKB_01: 8). In total over 15.000 interested people have visited Augustenborg to learn about its development and implemented actions (MKB_01: 2). In general as the intervention is well recognised (inter)-nationally as it has received a lot of attention especially connected to the World Habitats Award which have also published a document on why Augustenborg deserves the price (WorldHeritageAward_01). There is an extra section on “Analysis and lessons learned” which is structured into “Key achievments”, “Challenges” and “Critical success factors”. (WorldHeritageAward_01: 15f).
33. Have any signs of collaboration, support, or inspiration already been reported between actors involved in this intervention and others that follow its example? (e.g. in “follower cities”?)
Especially in Malmö and Sweden a lot of aspects of the project were transferred and upscaled: The Augustenborg solar project was the starting point for Solar City Malmö which operates all over Malmö (SMARTEES_01: 79). The regeneration of the Rosengard district and Rosengård (about 2010-13) and Lindängen (2014-2016) was based on Ekostaden Augustenborg. Both are located in Malmö. In Rosengard the goal was to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% e.g through climate coaches trying to inspire residents towards sustainable lifestyles and several technical solutions (ebd.) The participatory and inclusive aspect of the intervention was transferred to a similar development project in Järva /Sweden (ebd.)
There are also a lot of other aspects that reportedly were transferred to other cities in Sweden and throughout the world especially in waste-management, car-pooling, recycling and composting (WorldHabitatAward_01: 2).
The world’s first botanical rooftop garden serves as a best practice example for rooftop greening (WorldHabitatAward_01)
j) Structural learning
34. Has the intervention influenced higher-level governance arrangements such that sustainability and justice are considered (together) in a more durable, structural way? In other words, are there any observations about more structural, long-term changes as a result of the intervention?
- For example: new programs run by local councils, new modes of citizen participation, new mediating bodies
- Is there other evidence that the project has contributed to enhancing sustainable and just governance in cities in a general sense?
It is difficult to speak of clear cause and effect chains here. There seem to be no institutionalised bodies/programs that were created as a result of the project. Trevor Graham critises this as the city operates mostly on a project by project basis with a lacking long-term shared vision of change cross departments (Interview Trevor Graham).
k) Reflections on important governance concepts
35. What other aspects of governance, that were not covered above, are important to highlight, too?
Taking up a perspective of what could be done and helping residents in figuring out what they want and need as a municipality will lead to far better (sustainable and just) results in the end than if the goal is to transfer best practices from other areas (e.g. the transfer to the Rosengard district)
36. From your perspective as a researcher, which word or phrase characterizes this governance intervention most concisely? (Please attach your name to the characterization) In other words, what is the biggest takeaway from this intervention about governance arrangements?
One of the keys to success of this project was that the people working on the project from different departments of the city, the housing company, the school etc. tried to change ALL issues that were addressed in the neighbourhood, no matter if they were responsible for these issues on paper. This generated a collaborative approach and a belief that change was possible. Another part is combining elements of social as well as physical change, which creates a process of reinforcing (E.g seeing that my neighbour managed to design a certain part of the neighbourhood you might think that you can do so as well)
Appendix 1: Three modes of governance
(from NATURVATION project)
NATURVATION's NBS-Atlas distinguishes three categories of governance arrangements (dubbed "management set-ups":
- Government-led (Gov)
- Co-governance or hybrid governance (mix of responsibilities between government and non-government actors) (c/h)
- Led by non-government actors (NGO)
Alternatively or additionally, the following four modes of governing (as distinguished also by Bulkeley/Kern 2006 and Zvolska et al. 2019) could be used as a typology: Castan Broto/ Bulkeley 2013:95
- Self-governing, intervening in the management of local authority operations to ‘‘lead by example’’;
- Provision, greening infrastructure and consumer services provided by different authorities;
- Regulations, enforcing new laws, planning regulations, building codes, etc.; and
- Enabling, supporting initiatives led by other actors through information and resource provision and partnerships”
Appendix 2: Policy typology
(from NATURVATION project)
|Regulatory (administrative, command-and-control)||Mandatory fulfillment of certain requirements by targeted actors||Legislations, regulations, laws, directives, etc.|
|Economic (financial, market-based)||Financial (dis)incentives to trigger change by providing (new) favourable (or unfavourable) economic conditions for targeted actors||Positive incentive include subsidies, soft loans, tax allowance and procurments. Negative incentives are taxes, fees and charges.|
|Informative (educational)||They aim at providing information or knowledge to target actors in order to increase awareness and support informed decision-making accomplish or prevent social change||Information and awareness raising campaigns, informative leaflets, advertisements in different media.|
|Voluntary||Commitment and/or actions beyond legal requirements, undertaken by private actors and/or non-governmental organisations.||Voluntary actions and agreements.|
- Background to this question: Our four main criteria for selecting particular governance interventions and develop rich descriptions of them were: A) The intervention has been studied in a specific urban context (e.g. city), B) this context is located in Europe (and, preferably, the study was EU-funded), C) the intervention considers to a large extent sustainability AND justice (at least implicitly), and D) it is well-documented, ideally including assumptions or even critical reflections on enablers and barriers to implementation and on transferability (i.e. ‘de-contextualizability’). Additionally, we aimed at a diverse portfolio of domains (see Q2.) and governance modes (see Q5): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nCPcUd-COIQ1MsBjir20_F1CBbnSu6HqKH9nNLshiVQ/edit?usp=sharing.
- Actor types according to TRANSIT’s Critical Turning Point Database, http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/about-ctps-in-tsi-processes.
- If easily possible mention sources for your association of roles.
- Deliverable 7.1 Synthesis Report on results from Monitoring and Evaluation (p.14) : http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/fileadmin/documents_organicresearch/foodlinks/publications/karner-etal-d-7-1.pdf .
- Feel free to include learning that has been made available through EU project documentation, intervention initiatives, or other channels. In addition to the forms in which the learning process has been shared with others, please indicate whether the learning process that’s being shared has been recorded in a self-critical/reflexive way.