Forest Science

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 20 July 2022

doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.885951
Delivering Blue-Green Infrastructure:

Innovation Pathways for Integrating
Multiple Values
Lizet Kuitert* and Arwin van Buuren
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
Realizing a multifunctional blue-green infrastructure (BGI) as a nature-based solution for

the urban water system and built environment within crowded city areas is seen as a
promising route for the process of climate adaptation. BGI projects like rain gardens,
green roofs, and water squares can be combined to achieve a variety of technical
(drainage), environmental (biodiversity), economic (property development) and social
(health and wellbeing) goals and values at a local neighborhood level. As integrating
such values within local governments’ existing fragmented structures and procedures
has proved to be challenging, urban governments are increasingly experimenting with
innovative governance approaches at different levels to capitalize on the multiple benefits
of BGI. Nevertheless, policy actors who try to justify their choices in the face of
value conflicts are both constrained and enabled by the institutions they can call on.
Using a qualitative comparative case study, this article therefore aims to gain insight
Edited by:
Lise Herslund,
into different ways of, or approaches to, organizing value integration. In particular, we
University of Copenhagen, Denmark compare: (1) a top-down case of programmatic steering to translate value integration
Reviewed by: into a neighborhood approach; (2) a market-oriented innovative procurement approach
Bernadett Kiss, to local public-private partnership projects; and (3) a case of invitational governance
Lund University, Sweden
Monika Trojanowska, for a future-proof neighborhood that is striving for a sense of citizen ownership. Our
University of Technology and Life findings demonstrate the conditions, drivers, and barriers to the value integration of
Sciences in Bydgoszcz, Poland
different governance innovations in relation to time-related issues, the types of support
*Correspondence:
Lizet Kuitert
available, organizational embedding, and stakeholder involvement. Our specific focus
kuitert@essb.eur.nl is on understanding how social and sustainability and spatial and technical values are
integrated. This paper thus helps us to get to grips with different pathways to value
Specialty section:
integration in the context of urban infrastructures, as well as their applicability and
This article was submitted to
Innovation and Governance, the conditions for success. These insights will enable the further strengthening of our
a section of the journal capacity to build climate-proof cities in a value-driven and integrative manner.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities
Keywords: governance innovation, value integration, blue-green infrastructure, hybridity, ambiguity, climate-
Received: 28 February 2022
resilient, multifunctional urban planning
Accepted: 20 June 2022
Published: 20 July 2022
Citation:
Kuitert L and van Buuren A (2022)
INTRODUCTION
Delivering Blue-Green Infrastructure:
Innovation Pathways for Integrating
Climate change and urbanization test the resilience of our cities, putting additional pressure on
Multiple Values. the already complex challenges they face and intensifying the burden on limited resources and
Front. Sustain. Cities 4:885951. space (Head and Alford, 2015; Trein and Maggetti, 2020). These challenges are multidimensional
doi: 10.3389/frsc.2022.885951 and therefore require new urban-planning solutions, for infrastructure and public spaces.
Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Kuitert and van Buuren Value Integration in BGI Governance
Multifunctionality is an emerging concept, and one such policy integration (Candel and Biesbroek, 2016), reforms to
approach to climate-change challenges is blue-green administrative coordination (Trein et al., 2021) or integrated
infrastructure (BGI). These projects are a form of nature- spatial planning (Vigar, 2009; Pozoukidou, 2020). On the other
based solution and include “a wide range of measures aimed hand, it has proved to be challenging to integrate values within
at protecting and resorting natural ecosystems in urban areas” the traditional task-oriented and segmented structures and
(Sharifi et al., 2021, p. 3). Nature-based solutions can occur at procedures of local governments. Previous research has argued
different scale levels: “from the individual building scale (e.g., that no consensus exists on what value integration actually
green roofs), to the neighborhood scale (neighborhood parks, is and how it is achieved (Keast et al., 2007). Consequently,
bicycle lanes), to city-wide networks of green and blue spaces” urban-government departments are increasingly experimenting
(Sharifi et al., 2021, p. 6). In terms of (B)GI, this is understood with governance innovations at different levels: (1) strategic,
as adopting green, vegetated infrastructure in water systems with horizontal value integration and government participation
(Kiparsky et al., 2013; Deletic et al., 2020; Nieuwenhuis et al., (Van Buuren et al., 2016; Edelenbos et al., 2017a); (2) tactical,
2022). BGI can encompass a wide variety of spaces, such as green with sustainable procurement (e.g., Grandia, 2015); and (3)
roofs, water plazas, or rain gardens that aim to make cities more operational, with social innovation as a bottom-up form of value
climate-proof, while also benefiting society in many other ways integration to capitalize on the multiple benefits of BGI (Karré,
(Willems et al., 2020; Choi et al., 2021). BGI aims to (re-)create 2018; Pel et al., 2020). In this context, Keast et al. (2007) argue that
the natural water-cycle, as seen in physical interventions like a failure to understand the attributes of the various integration
green roofs, pocket parks, and permeable pavements. –BGI modes, or to adequately match their mechanisms and processes
projects not only offer technical solutions for water management with the stated purpose and context, has contributed to the
(e.g., improving urban drainage), but can also enhance the limited success of integration strategies.
environment (e.g., biodiversity), the spatial quality of the lived The purpose of the present research is to gain insight
environment, and social aspects (e.g., social inclusion and into different ways of, or approaches to, organizing value
health/wellbeing), as well as bring economic value (e.g., property integration. The paper first outlines the theoretical background
prices) (Raymond et al., 2017). of three different forms of governance innovation for realizing
BGI projects are thus promising examples of value integration, value integration in BGI projects. The subsequent methods
which means the coming together of different values of different section describes a cross-case study containing three examples
stakeholders for the benefit of society, making our world more that represent different pathways in different positions on the
secure, smart, shared, sustainable, and satisfying (Visser, 2017). continuum between bureaucratic and social innovation. In
The multidimensional nature of climate-adaptation issues brings particular, we compare: (1) a top-down, or government-centered,
value-integration challenges. Essentially, fundamental values like case of programmatic steering to translate value integration into
technical orientation and cost-effectiveness are being expanded a neighborhood approach; (2) a market-oriented, innovative
to include novel ones on social and sustainability values, and procurement approach to a local public-private partnership
infer a need for new behaviors by public employees, their project; and (3) a case of inviting governance for a future-proof
leaders, and the system as a whole (Kuitert, 2021). The success neighborhood that aims to achieve a sense of citizen ownership.
of policies to combat climate change depends largely on the These cases all involve technical and physical BGI outcomes
extent to which they are “integrated” with other sectoral combined with social stakeholder integration goals. We analyze
strategies based on different value perspectives (Tosun and the ways in which these different approaches help to realize
Lang, 2017). Accordingly, more attention need to be paid (and sustain) the multiple values of BGI. The findings section
to governance innovation. New governance approaches like does not concern any assessment of these approaches, but rather
“joined-up-government” and “whole-of-government”, have been a conceptualization of the differences in the value-integration
developed to address horizontal policy problems holistically pathways, interpreting and appraising them in their specific
(Christensen and Lægreid, 2007). Nevertheless, policy actors context. The paper thus helps us to achieve an understanding of
who try to justify their choices in the face of value conflicts different pathways to value integration from the perspectives of
are both constrained and enabled by the institutions available urban infrastructures, their applicability, and the conditions for
for them to call upon (Thacher and Rein, 2004). Combining success. Finally, we discuss how these insights further strengthen
newly emerging approaches to administrative innovation with our capacity to build climate-resilient cities in a value-driven and
traditional systems of governance leads to both external and integrative manner.
internal hybridity, as well as ambiguity for management and
leadership (Mair et al., 2015; Caldwell et al., 2017). As a
result, achieving value integration in BGI projects has proved GOVERNANCE INNOVATION FOR VALUE
to be difficult (Rauken et al., 2015; Oseland, 2019) and until INTEGRATION
now, our understanding how different values come together
in decision-making is limited and spread across various parts Successful multifunctional, climate-resilient and sustainable
of the literature on, e.g., policy controversies or collaborative urban-planning projects requires them to be conducted in a
governance (Thacher and Rein, 2004; Ansell et al., 2017). On the context where there is increasing interdependence and actors
one hand, quite a lot is known about the top-down bureaucratic must coordinate their activities when drafting interventions
approaches used for value integration, including through that impact multiple other goals and values. Governments

have to work with numerous parties with different interests, also used in cities’ branding strategies, which emphasize the
viewpoints, knowledge gaps, and uncertainties in relation to different sustainable, social and health co-benefits (Anguelovsk
both the climate and society. Moreover, the resources available et al., 2019).
for implementation are distributed across a wide variety of This value integration can be achieved through different types
actors. Most studies on the integration of a multiplicity and/or of managerial innovation that involve diverse forms of hybridity;
plurality of values focus on the network level by discussing or, in other words, it can be achieved through different types
hybridized forms of governance (Torfing and Triantafillou, of governance innovation alongside technical innovation. In
2013); more specifically, the collaborations and conflicts that this paper, we distinguish between: (1) top-down bureaucratic
can arise between organizations with different strategic goals and innovation followed by implementation; (2) innovation in
interests. Research that focuses less on network dynamics or public procurement for projects where responsibilities for
collaborations between different actors, and more on the internal implementation and management are shared within public-
aspects of governments and how they deal with the need to private partnerships; and (3) bottom–up social innovation that
integrate different values are emerging (Laegreid, 2016; Kuitert, aims to generate societal support during the process of project
2021). In this paper, following Fossestøl et al. (2015, p. 290), delivery. There can be various forms of value integration in
hybridity is approached in terms of “the ability of organizations to these different types of governance innovation, e.g., policy-based,
incorporate elements from contradictory institutional logics over project-based, and stakeholder integration.
time, and thus as the organizational processes through which this
incorporation is managed.” In hybrid constellations, therefore,
public actors must somehow unite their core values (i.e., Bureaucratic Innovation and Policy
organizational cultures) and combine conflicting: institutional Integration for Blue-Green Infrastructure
logics; bureaucratic and community logics (traditional public Studies on how to deal with the multidimensional nature of
administration—TPA); market or commercial logics (new transitional issues like climate adaptation usually focus on
public management—NPM); and network logics (new public matters of policy integration, defined as—“policy-making in
governance—NPG) (Nederhand et al., 2019). certain domains that take policy goals of other, arguably adjacent,
In urban planning, multifunctionality is based on “the variety domains into account” (Tosun and Lang, 2017, p. 559). This
of services provided by the space in service of economic, social, could occur either horizontally (between domains on the same
and environmental requirements” (p. 206). Applied to BGI, level, e.g., urban) or vertically (linking the (supra-)national,
core values in urban water management, such as reliability regional and local levels with each other) (Hertin and Berkhout,
and cost-effectiveness, have to be connected to different logics, 2003). In this paper, policy integration is treated as an activity
e.g., spatial or economic, as well as to a “social” logic for taking place at the strategic decision-making level. Consequently,
the delivery of multiple economic, social, and environmental incorporating values via forms of policy integration can be
benefits (Hansen et al., 2019; Van Zyl et al., 2021). In the viewed as a kind of administrative or bureaucratic innovation
literature on planning, it is acknowledged that future-proofing which must then find its way through the organization to
the built environment requires shifts in the values and goals be implemented.
guiding the management of cities, as well as adjustments to the In the context of BGI, this is not as simple as it
institutional frameworks contextual to decision-making (Carmin looks. BGI is usually a responsibility of the urban-drainage
et al., 2012). In traditional forms of water management, the domain (urban water management) at a local government level
technical department within the governmental body, with a focus (Farrelly and Brown, 2011). Traditional water management,
on water safety, often takes the lead. In delivering traditional gray where the government is the main initiator, financier, and
infrastructure, technical and spatial values have been prominent definer of the measures undertaken, is dominated by classical,
(Raymond et al., 2017), e.g., drainage and alignment between democratic, and bureaucratic values relating to public authority,
the underground and aboveground space. The different spatial legality, efficiency, and impartiality (Edelenbos et al., 2017b).
claims have become more elaborate with the growth of BGI, since Traditional public management, meanwhile, is characterized by
it also claims space for social (e.g., an inviting living environment procedural values whereby integrity indicates the quality of the
via sports’ fields), sustainability (e.g., creating awareness through process, along with associated values like transparency, equality,
water features in playgrounds or water squares), and other lawfulness, and honesty (De Graaf and Paanakker, 2015; Smets
spatial values (e.g., more greenery). Such a comprehensive system et al., 2015).
requires the involvement of multiple disciplines and stakeholder In justifying why more attention is paid to one value at the
groups, which in turn bring their own value systems to the expense of another, rules and conventions, or fixed decision-
process (Kuitert, 2021). The sphere of urban water management making structures organized by jurisdictions and provided by
has to bridge internal government-policy domains, including the institution, help policy actors to protect certain standards
health departments and urban planners (Wamsler et al., 2020). when values conflict (Thacher and Rein, 2004). Within this
Health benefits associated with reduced air, water and noise top-down policy integration, positions of power are often
pollution, and mental/physical health benefits more generally, protected by a technical approach whereby measurability in
are also taken into account (Sharifi et al., 2021). Economic models ensures justification (Ford et al., 2019). At the bare
advantages are also apparent, e.g., in relation to property values minimum, policy integration can, e.g., lead to less duplication
and energy savings (Choi et al., 2021). Green infrastructure is between domains. In this case, value alignment takes place and

concerns the parallelization of a system using the similarities of 2013). In project management in the construction industry, there
standards to structure it, and in which compatibility is increased is an ongoing shift away from rational-technical approaches to
and standards are combined in a management document decision-making, planning and implementation. This builds on
(Jørgensen et al., 2006). While this degree of integration existing—more traditional and contractual—governance value
combines values, separate procedures nevertheless remain in systems, moving toward approaches that capture the complex
place. More ambitious policy integration can lead to wholly and dynamic aspects of projects that open up opportunities for
institutionalized interactions between domains that develop newer forms of governance (Bygballe and Swärd, 2019). This is in
priorities and strategies mutually (Cejudo and Michel, 2017). line with Bryson et al. (2014), who also suggest that the renewed
This next step toward integrated management takes place via emphasis on public values advocates more contingent, pragmatic
internal coordination that aims to reduce possible trade-offs. kinds of rationality, going beyond the formal rationalities and
However, this brings about a “weighted balance” in values, which leading to a more holistic way of creating and sustaining values.
could quickly degenerate into the pursuit of the sum of individual
customer desires (Stoker, 2006).
Social Innovation and Stakeholder
Integration for Blue-Green Infrastructure
Procurement Innovation and A recent, promising approach explored by local governments
Project-Based Integration for Blue-Green as a way to achieve value integration is social innovation
Infrastructure (Karré, 2018; Pel et al., 2020). This is predominantly aimed
Over the past decade, the public sector has undergone at improving social outcomes and creating joint public value
increased “projectification” in order to adhere demands for in interactions with citizens, societal actors, and governmental
interorganizational collaborations and more efficient governance agencies (Wittmayer et al., 2020). Social innovation (SI) refers
and organizational structures. This means that public sector to new approaches to dealing with societal challenges, and
services that have traditionally been delivered by permanent comes about through networks and joint action in social
bodies are now increasingly provided via individual projects domains, outside the systemic world of government and the
trough procurement (Godenhjelm et al., 2015; Hodgson business logic of the corporate industry (Karré, 2018). Internally,
et al., 2019). In today’s complex society, such projects are SI means the crossing of boundaries, i.e., the integration of
often developed in public-private partnerships. Procurement different policy domains within local governments; externally,
commonly takes place at a tactical, decision-making level. The it means creating compelling new relationships through greater
involvement of public bodies in these partnership arrangements stakeholder involvement at an operational level (Mulgan et al.,
means that they withdraw from the direct delivery of services, 2007).
instead separating out regulatory and operational functions Social innovation goes beyond crossing different
(Steenhuisen et al., 2009). In doing so, they must then rely on governmental boundaries, providing another pathway to value
the capabilities of other, often private, organizations to produce integration by engaging different stakeholders with connections
the much-needed process and product innovations identified. to a variety of value systems: from public institutions under
Traditionally, the technical initiating and contracting public procurement law, to public and private organizations
departments responsible for BGI have had structures and tools in their socio-technical environment, and to residents in their
in place for project-based integration. In contrast, NPM has societal context (Wittmayer et al., 2020). This resonates with
a formal focus based on legal and contractual arrangements, the third, more collaborative or joined-up, mode of public
transactions and bargaining (Keast and Hampson, 2007). In the management, which is commonly referred to as NPG), in which
project-management literature, research into value and value market and community logics are ultimately combined for
creation has mainly focused on general project-performance the purpose of achieving added value (Smets et al., 2015). SI
achievements in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and other, more combines technical, social and economic objectives through
commercial, values (Martinsuo et al., 2019). Using market logics, which governments strive to achieve broader goals for both
the basis for the strategy is profit maximization (Smets et al., public and private parties (Karré, 2018). In the case of BGI
2015), with performance values (organizational—business-like) in particular, SI has profound implications for the local
like effectiveness and efficiency dominant. governments that are typically responsible for urban water
Incentive structures are used to achieve policy objectives via management, which has to bridge policy domains internal to the
procurement innovation, especially through the use of markets government, including health departments and urban planners
and, increasingly, with social partners and the participation of (Wamsler et al., 2020). On the other hand, the urban water-
residents (Bryson et al., 2014). In public-private collaborations, management domain has to build compelling new relationships
one ideally expects governance arrangements to reflect the with the private sector and civil society, as BGI is typically
requirements, aspirations, and sanctions of all the sectors constructed above the surface and is, therefore, often also located
involved, since all partners bring their own value palettes to the on private property.
process (Stafford and Stapleton, 2017). Public clients are thus Pursuing SI for BGI enables local governments to integrate
involved in achieving the goals of both the “permanent” public- the different value dimensions of the multifunctional BGI.
commissioning organization and the “temporary” project-related Value integration like SI is primarily aimed at improving social
network of public and private parties (Hobday, 2000; Eriksson, outcomes and creating public value by combining technical,

social, and economic objectives which together form new into projects at the neighborhood level, and a neighborhood
functionalities that move beyond technical urban drainage approach, in which a measurement that is integral to
(Karré, 2018; Willems et al., 2020). It is only when the urbanism and inclusive processes is pursued. Programming
whole is greater than the sum of the parts (added value) meetings decide which projects could be adapted to a
that there is full value integration, which can be achieved neighborhood approach and, with this, optimize the co-
by creating a culture of learning, stakeholder participation, benefits of a specific project. When a neighborhood approach
and continued improvement (Jørgensen et al., 2006). To this is proposed, the input of an area/neighborhood manager may
end, network-type partnerships are being established. In these be useful.
alternative forms of collaboration, in which the government We specifically examined a blue-green department dedicated
facilitates external initiatives, other administrative values like to creating a “climate-sensitive city” in relation to its agenda-
customization, flexibility, and effectiveness are more important setting role within the programming table and its interactions
(Edelenbos et al., 2017b). Added value is achieved when the with other departments. The actions and measures that
integration of values leads to enhanced value for each objective were part of this vision focused on improving the quality of
within the integration (Stoker, 2006), which is the case if the the public space by bringing nature and water close to the
multifunctionality of BGI is realized. homes of residents. This was achieved by adding, using and
connecting the green and the blue (from facade gardens to
green lanes and city parks, and from water gardens to city
METHODS ponds respectively). To analyze the implementation impact
Cross-Case Study of the blue-green vision, we took into account one specific
Our study explores the conditions, drivers and barriers relating “project/assignment” to which the neighborhood approach
to the value integration of different governance innovations. was applied. In this specific project, smaller neighborhood
To this end, a qualitative research approach was employed activities like greening gardens were combined with a
in the form of a cross-case study at three municipalities; multifunction park, with goals relating to climate adaptation,
(A) Dordrecht, (B) The Hague, and (C) Rotterdam. In-depth, biodiversity, recreation, and public health. Internal and external
case-study research enables the collection of context-specific social partners (e.g., an NGO and a sports council) were
knowledge (Yin, 1994), which is crucial for increasing our also involved, with plans to enable them to achieve their
understanding of different pathways to value integration. An own goals.
interesting research context is the construction industry, which
has a crowded, complex, and contested policy arena, where Case B: Procurement Innovation
various mechanisms and alternative values and goals must be Case B concerns a pilot project for a new municipal policy that
considered and accommodated (Kuitert, 2021). aimed to adopt an innovative participatory approach in which
The case selection was theory driven, with the three collaboration and social returns were key. A tendering board
examples representing the different value-integration governance was set up to discuss and assess plans before they were officially
innovations—bureaucratic, procurement, and social—that each announced as tenders. These discussions centered on whether the
reflect a potential for value integration (i.e., aligned, combined, proposals reflected various policy goals, and whether there were
weighted, and added). In order to investigate the specific any missed opportunities with respect to co-benefits.
value-integration dynamics and outcomes, the cases all involve The project concerned an urban redevelopment project,
smart management in urban development. All of the studied where the goal of the municipality was to transform a typical
municipalities engaged in governance innovation by creating public square, with a playground and a simple petting zoo in
public value in the form of BGI, achieving climate-adaptation a somewhat problematic neighborhood, into a true municipal
goals through technical, spatial, or social activities at the park, with climate adaptation measures in place in the form
interface of government, markets, and society. In doing so, of green water buffers. The park needed to have a wide appeal
value integration was pursued via the translation of program, that would boost the reputation and quality of the urban living
procurement, and process goals at the local level. Table 1 environment of the entire area. In view of an aim to ensure
gives an overview of the cases. Most BGI value-integration procurement innovation in an actual physical scheme, a public-
challenges occur between more traditional technical and spatial private project network was established to achieve lofty social
values, rather than social and sustainability standards, and goals regarding the Social Return on Investment (SROI in Dutch)
we have therefore selected cases in which these tensions are and socially responsible procurement (MVI in Dutch). Next to
apparent. Consequently, there is maximum variation in the cases’ a municipal project team, A group of local small and medium-
independent variable—governance innovation, (Flyvbjerg, 2006). sized enterprises were able to sign up to participate in a tender
pool with a view to eventually being awarded one of the contracts
Case A: Bureaucratic Innovation available for the design and/or execution of the project. A resident
Case A concerns an (internal) programmatic approach panel was also established to represent various inhabitant groups
toward the implementation of multiple policy goals in during the design and procurement process, and two assistant
various neighborhoods. Executing this has involved the project managers were appointed by the municipality to act as
development of both a “programming table”, in which intermediaries. The three project managers formed the core of a
opportunities are explored for co-benefits to be translated heterogenous project team.

TABLE 1 | Introduction to the case studies.
Case A Case B Case C

Bureaucratic innovation Procurement innovation Social innovation
Integration pathway Program management (hierarchy) Innovative procurement: innovative Inviting governance (network)
participatory approach
(market)
Organizational level Programming meeting (strategic) Tenderboard Core team (operational)
(tactic)
Neighborhood level Neighborhood approach Tenderpool and resident panel “Movement”
Integration perspective Broadening physical with social Physical as a tool for social (leverage) The physical adjustments are
used to create social impact
Sustainability objective Climate adaptation translated into Blue Climate adaptation subsidy used for Broad sustainability objective
Green Task spatial development (people, planet, profit)
Social objective Involving internal and external social SROI (social return on investment) + From top-down to bottom-up
partners in programming decision MVI (socially responsible procurement) movement: ownership,
making + participation empowerment
Case C: Social Innovation that lasted for, on average, between 45 and 90 min. They were
Case C concerns a neighborhood development established to all recorded and transcribed verbatim. Documents were also
respond to multiple transitional challenges, including the energy obtained and analyzed. These comprised documents that were
evolution, a circular environment, and digitalization. Through cited in the interviews, often acquired with the help of the
various small adjustments, such as the greening of streets and interviewees themselves; and additional documents, which were
making parking spaces permeable, the goal was to become an selected based on the values that requiring integration and the
example of a future-proof neighborhood: “Circular, sustainable type of governance innovation. In terms of the observations,
and truly green.” In addition to sustainability, circularity, data, we witnessed gatherings and meetings involving actors from
and livability there were four more “social” goals: (1) bridging various domains and departments, and in some cases also
the generation and culture gap; (2) leveraging talents; (3) healthy private and societal stakeholders. This enabled us to undertake
family budgets; and (4) a healthy lifestyle. The case was a pilot a thorough analysis. Notes were made of all the activities
scheme in a process of organizational change in which novel we observed.
ways of working were being implemented. It was also a “testing We conducted a secondary analysis of three cases that had
ground” for new management principles, in which the aim was been part of previous studies. This explains the differences in
to encourage, enable, and actively invite residents to, as far as the size of the datasets in terms of the number of interviews
possible, take charge of managing the neighborhood themselves. (Case A: 15; Case B: 34; Case C: 16) and the observations.
The municipality contained a movement of enthusiasts who In relation to the latter, the observations conducted for cases
were putting this new way of working into practice on the B and C were more extensive, since we had attended various
basis of the principles of (1) “smart management”, in which meetings of multiple key teams for the earlier research. Only
physical adjustments are used to create a societal impact, and one meeting of a key team was observed for Case A, as this
where liveability comes first and sustainable energy is key, and type of meeting had only been taking place for a short period
(2) “intrinsic motivation”. These enthusiasts had many goals, of time; for Case B, there were more informal observations,
and were “on a journey” and showing their commitment to which occurred when we visited the site of the pilot scheme. The
residents. There was, however, uncertainty concerning the extent datasets from the previous studies were carefully examined to
to which this resident “activation” could be realized, especially ensure that they were appropriate for our work. Consideration
around issues of social transition like energy, circularity, was also given to the research question and the purpose of the
and technology. primary study, as well as to who had carried it out, enabling us
to consult and gain access to these scholars (Johnston, 2017).
Data Collection Our research question fit well with those of these original studies,
Different types of data were collected for each case to since each of them had a focus on trying to understand new ways
allow for source triangulation, and to enable us to draw a of working (governance innovation) and the impact on both the
distinction between self-reported and actual behavior and official public organization and the private and/or societal partners. Each
documentation. Formal and informal interviews, observations, of the primary case studies had a process research component,
and documents were all utilized (see Table A1 for an overview). where process data (stakeholders involved, phases and steps,
This data combination allowed us to assess how civil servants considerations, and applied governance approaches, roles, and
are confronted with hybridization and value tensions relating management techniques) was collected by either looking back at
to the implementation of governance innovations. In terms of or following the process for a period of time. The first author was
the interviews, key public and private actors were recruited for the principal researcher for the primary study involving cases A
each case. In total, there were 65 semi-structured interviews and B; the second author played a role in the primary study for

Case C. The principal researcher was also consulted to discuss the impact of physical and technical planning, as can be seen in the
potential use of the dataset for the current study. memoon the implementation of the programing plans for the
public space.
Data Analysis
Examining pathways to value integration required us to Using the MIP tool [a digital mapping tool], additional initiatives,
understand the decision-making and governance processes projects, concerns, or ambitions that could potentially be part of this
behind the pursuit of value creation. A strong process orientation project are reviewed. These may be items that aren’t a priority, but
helped us to provide important, context-sensitive insights into will require attention if work is to take place at that location. These
ambitions and needs should be available on the map in the MIP tool
how practitioners are enabled and constrained in their strategic
(with reference to contact person). (Memo on the implementation of
actions and decisions by wider organizational and/or social
the programing plans for the public space)
practices (Vaara and Whittington, 2012). We used a qualitative
content analysis (Flick, 2013) to examine what happened
with both climate-adaptation and wider societal goals when In Case B, a far-reaching form of participation was decided at
the multifunctional BGI projects were delivered via different an early stage. This decision was made mainly at the political
forms of governance innovation. We specifically focused on and policy level, where an alderman with social goals took the
understanding the integration of social and sustainability values lead. As a result, a very broad project team was appointed to
with spatial and technical values. The views of the participants expand on this far-reaching participation in a pilot scheme at
were found to be complementary, together providing a detailed the neighborhood level. In addition to more traditional roles,
and multifaceted picture of the conditions, drivers, and barriers such as project manager and urban planner, this team also
concerning value integration by way of the different modes of included a communications consultant and a neighborhood
governance innovation. broker. This led to non-traditional discussions among the team
and the exploration of new possibilities, which brought with
them opportunities for value coordination. As an example, much
RESULTS: CONDITIONS AND DRIVERS attention was paid to possibilities around SROI, which normally
FOR VALUE INTEGRATION takes shape at the implementation stage and is carried out
by the contractor with the support of the municipality’s job
Timely Involvement of Non-traditional center. Another example in this case was the early involvement
Stakeholders of internal-assessment institutions. In setting up the innovative
The integration of values in public-service delivery requires participatory process, one of these bodies, the public-space
different decision-making perspectives. Decisions with the most advisory committee (ACOR), was invited in at an early stage to
impact are traditionally made in the early stages of the process. inform and make recommendations regarding opportunities for
Findings show that in various governance innovations, by the value integration that would ensure compliance with restrictions
early involvement of social and sustainability actors, which are in future assessments. This opened up ways to create added value:
the most interdependent of the domains, an environment is
created that supports non-standard interactions between relevant “Hopefully, it also has to do with the fact that we approached
actors. It has been shown that—for interactions between the and engaged ACOR during the early stages, even before we got
government level and the neighborhood level in particular—the started. We asked them to tell us about the general lines that
early involvement of various internal and external stakeholders we had to consider.” (Interview with urban district-manager at
provides a broader view of the opportunities to combine the municipality)
technical, social, and spatial tasks, thereby forming the
foundations of each of the value-integration pathways. In Case C, various types of communication emphasized the need
Case A saw various city-management departments meet to to create space for sustainability values (both physical and social)
discuss strategic planning for different projects and to align their in the decision-making process. In this case, there was no clear
work schedules, as far as possible, to reduce any inconvenience idea about the involvement of public actors, other than wanting
caused to residents; an example of this is achieving efficiencies by a diverse team. Diversity was sought in relation to a variety
planning to carry out work at the same time, thereby obviating of personal characteristics, along with a common drive to look
the need to repeatedly dig up a street in order to, e.g., introduce beyond the line organization. The adaptability of the pathway
climate-adaptation measures or manage social problems at the (ambitions, but no elaboration on how to get there), as well as the
neighborhood level. Traditional city-management departments, actors involved, was embraced by viewing the process as a “joint
such as sewage and road construction, were represented at these journey”. This enabled the co-linking of different initiatives along
programming meetings, as were, e.g., departments relating to the way.
physical and social neighborhood-management that normally
become involved later in the delivery process. This approach With that, physical co-linking opportunities are primarily sought
provided an opportunity to align technical and spatial aims with when there are direct plans for the neighborhood in question. A
social goals, which can otherwise often lead to value trade-offs logical choice. The exception to this pragmatic approach is [name
in later stages of the process. The overarching goal is to move project]. In [name project], a process has already been started
beyond mere alignment, in particular by increasing the social in preparation for the sewer replacement. In the planning, space

has been provided from the sewer replacement to work on the “With [name], it was less wobbly because then, because of her
construction of a heat network. (Research report, summer 2020) position, she was more embedded in the standing organization;
for example, when it comes to entering into a dialogue with the
area committee. Then you need a strong manager who says: ’it’s
Institutional Support an open discussion, we’re not promising anything’. You need pillars
Our findings highlight how, if value integration was to be who are willing to carry it”. (Interview with one of the movement’s
achieved, the municipalities depended on embedding values from core-team members)
value-integration objectives in policies at the national, regional,
or organizational levels of government, which stresses the
importance of an (informal) form of vertical policy integration.
Trust Based on Experience and Expertise
Another driver of value integration in these governance
Although each of the cases’ governance innovations included
innovations was informal accountability associated with social
connections to both the parent organization (as part of its
innovation. This relates to having a strong personal influence
governance structure) and the project organization, another type
on, in particular, the social-spatial integration of values. Overall,
of institutional embedding was also prominent: the findings show
trusting certain public actors gave them the “freedom” needed
that each of the cases was related in different ways to the city-wide
to explore opportunities for value integration. Our findings
concept of smart-city management, which also plays a part at the
demonstrate the reliance on specific heterogenous (groups of)
regional and national levels. In all three cases, the support at a
public actors and other stakeholders to ensure that the balance
higher level appeared to be crucial for the implementation of the
was “right” between social and sustainability values and technical
value-integration pathways.
and spatial values.
In Case A, e.g., a specific blue-green vision was created
In Case A, this was mostly prominent in the composition
as the translation of a national plan (a collaboration between
of the group responsible for the programmeeting, where the
different municipalities) concerning spatial adaptations for
emphasis was on ensuring that the “best” people were members,
climate change. This vision was adopted by directors and
i.e., those with experience and knowledge of the city. These public
described as important for ensuring there was alignment
actors had to, ultimately, weigh up whether or not an integrated
with the city as a whole. This proved to be a key success
approach should be adopted for a project and to what extent and
factor for the projects through which this integrated program
which values could then be combined in an integrated approach.
was implemented.
These actors were part of the group attending meetings primarily
on the basis of their expertise, but were expected to be able to
“It’s not that hierarchical. But if it’s propagated there, then it’s a lot make broader assessments and to be open to other interests. Their
easier. Because, otherwise, you have to get it on the agenda yourself,
superiors did not give them a clear assignment or preconditions,
or even the district.” (Interview with social neighborhood manager)
but trusted their decision-making instead.
In Case B, the construction of a city park with high social-

‘That has to do with the fact that the people who go to the time-table
return ambitions even had support at the local political level. [meetings], those are my very best people. So, they know incredibly
The initiative and the support for the innovative participatory well what’s going on in an area...More than ten years of experience
approach came from a local alderman who wanted to boost with the municipality, in a coordinating role in their field. So, there
his relatively poor neighborhood. The political support created are a few figureheads, sitting there together”. (Interview with the
a sense of urgency and—although temporary—increased the cluster-manager for neighborhoods and member of the program
attention paid to the project and the social-return goals. time-tabling group)
Elements that the alderman would like to see in the community Something similar was seen among the tender board in Case B,
park include a kind of bandstand and the planting of a special where upcoming assignments were discussed and judged before
(large) tree. (Council letter on redesigning the district park [name] they were officially announced as tenders. The main focus of
and the meaning of procurement law) the assessment was to take into account, where possible, issues
of sustainability (technical, physical and social). The findings
In Case C, the emphasis was on the movement’s separate status show that risks and prices remained important decision-making
as an example of what the new municipal city-management team criteria, while other public value-related ambitions were also
should look like. However, despite the pilot status, our findings pursued. Here, too, the public actors represented their own
show the importance of ties with the organization’s strategic expertise and, thus, their department. However, they had to
levels. The role of one of the civil servants in particular was assess tendering strategies for all kinds of assignment, including
mentioned often. A certain “two-leggedness”, i.e., a “dual role”, those about which they did not necessarily have adequate levels
for this individual was considered to be crucial to the project’s of knowledge. It must therefore be taken on trust that they
success. This civil servant combined a directive-type role in the are experienced enough and smart enough to understand the
line organization with a role in the project’s core team. This submitted strategy and to ask those behind it enough questions
was especially beneficial to the capacity to adopt an exploratory to enable them to make a judgment.
approach in which trust in terms of responsibility provided space In Case C, it was even stressed that there was no clear
for experimentation. accountability. This allowed members of the movement’s core

team to discuss and examine all kinds of opportunities to on participation in the spatial elements of the project, as
integrate their interests, if possible. well as to local entrepreneurship, local employment, and
education in the form of apprenticeships. In addition,
“[project name] is a great initiative, because they work based on the neighborhood-specific nature of the participation
the energy in the individual. Normally, we work on a commission was emphasized “symbolically” using the identity and
basis, not on an enthusiasm basis. But that’s not how innovation communication channels of a local co-operation (public-
gets started. (Interview with movement’s core-team member) private partnership), with the aim being to move away from the
public, bureaucratic system.
This did not, however, necessarily lead to significant levels of In Case C, the neighborhood perspective was even more
integration, as there was a risk that the process would become prominent in the governance innovation. The main idea
an accumulation of small projects, each of which had one specific involved the notion that the work of small initiatives would
value goal. have a wider impact. The physical/spatial adjustments
were used to create a social effect—via preparations for
Focus on the Neighborhood Level replacing the sewer, space was created to “make work
The neighborhood level had a prominent place in each of with work”.
the value-integration pathways seeking to adopt an innovative
approach to governance. In each Case, the operational level
at which social innovation takes place, was prominent. This Separation and Adaptation of Internal and
is the level at which the actual value integration must be External Communication
executed to create an impact. According to the respondents, While true value integration requires the municipal system
this neighborhood scale fits well within the objective of and external institutions to come together, by both crossing
value integration, since this “life world” is, by its very of boundaries and creating compelling new relationships,
nature, integrated. our findings show that adjustments are made in interactions
to ensure that there is alignment between the different
“In everyday life, many things come together, such as work,
logics of stakeholders. This was particularly notable in terms
recreation, social contacts, security, etc.”. (Interview with social
of communication, where there was a distinction between
neighborhood manager—Case A).
engaging and maintaining the involvement of internal or
external stakeholders.
Value integration through internal-external stakeholder
Intermediaries were used in both Case A and Case B to bridge
integration (participation) is thus more logical at this level.
the gap between the logics of the system world and those of the
In Case A, the neighborhood approach was considered to
life-worlds of residents and local small businesses. Neighborhood
be one of the ways to deliver a project. When it was adopted
brokers participated with residents (Case A: official welfare
in the programming meeting, residents were regarded as key
partner of the municipality; Case B: self-appointed neighborhood
stakeholders during the rest of the process. To ensure that
agent with ties to a local neighborhood coalition, i.e., a public-
the social values of these residents were taken into account,
private collaboration). In Case A, the interaction between the
the social neighborhood manager took on a dual role with
internal and external stakeholders was also separated by phases.
the manager of the physical neighborhood when executing
In the planning phase, for instance, the social neighborhood
the project. In this way, traditional physical-technical decision-
manager was also expected to act as the internal representative.
making was widened to also encompass social-organizational
In cases B and C, the communication channels were
value interests.
also adapted for different groups and, in the latter, were
even differentiated very strictly. For example, in Case B,
“When a physical approach can achieve such social objectives, a
neighborhood approach will be needed. In this case, the ’project
the communication with residents was organized through
leader physical’ will form a duo with a neighborhood manager...The cultural associations and various contacts in the neighborhood.
neighborhood manager takes care of the social aspects; the project Observing the project-team’s meetings revealed that the
leader takes care of the physical project. Partial assignments may communications advisor often altered what was written (e.g.,
be necessary to avoid disruption in the case of unequal timelines letters to local businesses in the tender pool) to bring the wording
between the social and physical aspects.” (Neighborhood approach) more in line with the understanding and ways of working of
these specific stakeholders. In addition, special attention was
In Case B, the importance of the local-scale level was paid to the tendering process. The national procurement website
reinforced by translating and customizing the municipal was used to ensure fairness and legality, but invitations to tender
participation approach to the level of the sub-municipality. were also distributed to local businesses, accompanied by a clear
The participatory tools in the municipal policy were adjusted guide on how to subscribe and giving an option to “drop off ”
to the characteristics of the sub-municipality and even to the tender at a specific place in the neighborhood, instead of
different neighborhoods. In the specific pilot project that using the website’s upload facility. In Case C, the document
we investigated, local businesses and entrepreneurs were study and observations of the core team (e.g., 18-07-2019)
brought together in a tender pool and a residents’ panel showed that the reports on the progress of the movement were
was established. Their activities related to both working even produced in two ways: one using a “straight story” for

internal use, and one using “stories of citizens and dreams” for in relation to the initiatives that it could, or could not, be
external communications. involved with.
The Facilitating and Flexible Role of the “For this movement, we did get kind of an order from the
management team at City Management. They didn’t give us a
Municipality concrete assignment. The transformation of the city brochure, we
Growing interdependencies with respect to a variety of started with that. That was it.” (Interview with a core-team member
transitional issues, including the climate, have led to both internal of the movement)
and external changes in the roles of municipal departments
and, indeed, municipalities themselves. Our findings show that The municipality was “inviting” groups to contribute to its
the municipality was taking responsibility in all three cases by initiatives and adjusted its processes and planning accordingly.
being more flexible and facilitative in order to create value-
integration opportunities. This was achieved by waiting longer to
RESULTS: BARRIERS TO VALUE
start projects or slowing them down, or by extending the process
to ensure that it was possible to get involved at a later stage. In INTEGRATION
doing this, more space was created for value integration. The Different Time-Frames of Stakeholders
In Case A, flexibility was mainly sought by the municipality in Our findings show that one of the main concerns about the
the form of waiting or slowing schemes down. This time was used alignment of projects and other governance approaches is
to align technical and spatial projects and climate-adaptation differences in time-frames, which lead to misunderstandings
goals, and to provide opportunities to tackle social issues. This between social and sustainability and spatial and technical actors,
was then translated into a multi-annual plan. The waiting and in particular. The result of this is a conflict of interests between
slowing down was also used to achieve alignment with the stakeholders. Internally, most of these misunderstandings
projects of external stakeholders, including housing associations. take place between the technical and social domains, while
In its discussions to facilitate collaborations and alliances with internal-external confusion occurs due to differences in
such groups, the municipality was prepared to adjust its planning institutional boundaries.
to fit in with their time-scales, since the planning processes in Case A revealed multiple clashes between the social
these organizations were even more inflexible. neighborhood manager and actors from the technical
(e.g., sewage) departments, both within the municipality’s
“So, it’s not the case that we have rock-solid planning and then say programming meetings and during the project at the
to the housing association, it’s their turn in three years, go ahead neighborhood level. This relates, among other things, to
and demolish and build a new street next year, because the housing how long social action takes, since it involves people and is,
corporations are the least flexible in this. Their investment decisions
therefore, time-consuming. This was not understood by the
usually have to be made internally by a board of commissioners.
They often have ambitions, but before they really give a ‘go’ or ‘no
technical department, which uses predetermined processes to
go’ as to whether we have the money to carry out a certain project, achieve outcomes.
it’s often known only too late”. (Interview with the chairman of the
programming time-table team) “But the internal organization is a lot of technical people with blue
backgrounds; I assume you know what I mean when I say blue
and yellow and stuff. And they were really, like, what is this all
In Case B, the municipality also adapted its project planning, in about, what a load of old-fashioned stuff and I don’t have time for
particular to increase the opportunities available for participation this and I have to go, I have other things to do. And that literally
and, with this, add economic and social interests to the mix. happened, too, that during meetings they just walked away because
The project we observed was divided into sub-projects to make they had another meeting or they were called and they walked
them accessible to more of the smaller businesses involved with away.” (Interview with social neighborhood manager)
the tender pool. Modest design assignments were also included,
e.g., providing a blueprint for a bench. In addition, various Furthermore, adopting the neighborhood approach to ensure
phases were available for tender separately, for instance, design that social interests are included means more time is needed
and execution. This meant that a business was not necessarily for the initiating phase. For the technical domains, this stage
executing its specific designs or, at least, not on its own: does not necessarily require their alignment; they work based
on urgency and planning. At the neighborhood level, tensions
The participant who delivers the preliminary design does not have also exist with, e.g., the social-welfare partners and (mostly) other
to be the only one in the UO phase. Others from the company pool external stakeholders, like a housing association. As an example,
may also apply to join this UO stage. (Frameworks and guidelines the interviewees stated that the welfare partners “just start”, and
for tendering permits—District Park [name]) so the process will determine whether it works or if another
process needs to be initiated; they do not feel constrained by any
Collaborations in tenders were thus encouraged by the way institutional boundaries, but other partners prefer to inform their
assignments were broken up into smaller parts. residents in advance.
In Case C, the manifestation of flexibility was a key feature of In Case B, the tensions between the time-frames of the
the enthusiasts’ movement, and there were no clear boundaries technical and social domains are expressed in a similar way.

So, the actors from the latter wanted to meet the demand for As the climate-adaptation targets had been translated into a
an SROI via apprenticeships for young people locally. However, blue-green task, they had already been taken into account in
finding a way to do this within the terms of the current policy the initiation phase. This meant that the add-ons were, in fact,
took more time than there was available before planned work on quite successful.
the underground began. This was also related to political time- In Case B, the physical project was used as a tool for social
pressures, since “a shovel had to be put into the ground” to enable purposes. Social goals like achieving an SROI were a particular
the alderman to reveal his intentions and goals before his term on target, with efforts made to include, e.g., apprenticeships for
the council came to an end and the next election. local youths in the spatial-development plans, trading these
In Case C, time-frame differences between the technical and off against other value types. The project was described as a
social domains were less of an issue, because the goal of becoming physical transformation of a square into a park “where all kinds
gas free was part of the plans of a citizens’ energy collective. of activities, such as culture, can take place to strengthen social
Nevertheless, in this case, too, technical planning for replacing cohesion, ownership, and employment”. The physical transition
the sewage system prevailed. There was, however, tension overall could thus act as a lever for social goals. Furthermore, the
between the project organizers and the municipality as the parent MVI policy (socially responsible purchasing) was being expanded
institution, since there seemed to be no general planning taking to also encompass the social domain. The climate-adaptation
place at all; achieving the identified goals was the responsibility measures were only added to the plans when a subsidy later
of a number of small initiatives. Overall, this led to some provided additional funding.
misconceptions on the part of the municipality about the status In Case C, the task on paper (as identified in the document
of the enthusiasts’ movement in the process. study) was formulated as a transformation into a natural
gas-free neighborhood, combined with a broader task of
“People said internally, you can never go and ask for that. Then they increasing sustainability by linking social projects. Yet the
want ‘golden pools’. Whereas, we had to challenge them to really say explanations given in the interviews mainly concerned social
something. They were like: ‘we have to stay somewhat realistic’.” livability, ownership, empowerment, and making the responsive
(Interview with a core-team member of the movement) government more central. This misalignment between the
assignment and the understanding of the assignment led to a
A “Leading” Value conflict of interests. The integration was also very fragmented,
It became clear when we looked at the extent of the value- with multiple initiatives added to the tasks of the enthusiasts’
integration goals of the different governance innovations in the movement during the process.
three cases that one value nevertheless prevailed. This could be
related to the professional decision-making preferences. “It’s about social livability. Physical interventions can contribute to
In Case A, the goal was to combine the neighborhood this.” (Interview with neighborhood manager)
approach with the programming meetings as a way to “expand”
the physical domain by adding social elements to it. In this sense,
the physical/spatial domain remained the reference point and Non-committal Inclusion of Social and
the social domain was just an addition. As the decision-making Sustainable Objectives
about spatial projects mainly concerned budget and technical In a continuation of the finding discussed above, we also
constraints, the technical domain remained to the fore. identified that the social and sustainability values formulated in
the integration and implementation objectives were rather non-
“For maintenance, roads, and sewer replacement, we are the committal in nature. This can be explained by the dominance
main sources, because there’s also funding there.” (Interview with of traditional and project-based management approaches in
chairman of the program time-tabling team) the construction industry and as we saw in the cases. In by
the (organizational) positions of the more traditional technical
This principle was also reflected at the neighborhood level in and spatial actors representing and relatively new social and
the commissioning letters written after an integrated approach sustainability actors and their values and the influence they have
was chosen during the programming meeting. It is notable in on budgeting, mandates, and communication.
these letters that, in line with traditional assignments, they were In Case A, an observation of a programming meeting
written with reference to a main project (sewer replacement) revealed that the representatives of the social domain were still
and possible additions (e.g., greening and maintenance by the weakly embedded in the group. Although this is understandable,
neighborhood). The integral consideration was thus included as because this project was still in its early stages, it nonetheless
an after-effect and not as an outcome that was accounted for. demonstrates the existence of a clear barrier that will have to
Moreover, the municipality used the sewer replacement task, be overcome in the future. Several issues were raised by the
which could easily be carried out during the demolition required social actors in attendance, but these were quickly dismissed
for the construction of new housing for the housing association, with a suggestion that they would be discussed at a later
to advocate for greening. The sports council then used this to stage. The urgency of including social elements seemed to
“go with the flow” and to “ride the wave of water storage” as a be lacking. This may be explained by the fact that informal
way to improve their sports field and also make it more attractive project discussions appear to take place before the programming
to non-members. meetings set up to talk about this same project. Such consultation

takes place between actors who are used to working with programming meeting, a specific mapping tool was used where
one another. The urgency in relation to social matters is also different layers of projects and ambitions were portrayed on
lacking when commissioning letters are written. We identified a map. Zooming in on the environment relating to a specific
phrases in these documents like: “Takes into account blue-green project then provided the input for discussions about integration.
ambitions” and “social, community initiatives can be encouraged”. However, using a map was considered to be the language of
Accordingly, although these letters do translate objectives into the technical and spatial departments, and not that of the social
concrete projects, this is not the case in relation to social and domain or, to a lesser extent, that of climate adaptation. The social
sustainability values. and climate adaptation teams were therefore forced to translate
their information into a format that did not reflect the language
“Well, it’s more actually fairly pragmatic; in the assignment letter it they used. They had goals they wanted to achieve, but these often
says, for example, of in street [name] and then there’s a map with did not yet have a budget and remained quite abstract, making
that; the sewerage has to be replaced, the utilities have to replace gas them difficult to take into account.
pipes, traffic wants to install speed bumps, and then there have to be
green-blue measures, period. So, it’s all pretty down to earth really.” “You can’t say to the project coordinator, hey you have a project
(Interview with chairman of the program time-tabling team) there in the neighborhood, well then solve a social problem at the
same time. So, a team will have to be set up, and the social district
In Case B, the non-committal nature referred to above is not manager, who I think will play a leading role in this, will say that
so much reflected in the formulation of the value targets in we think we can solve problems here by creating a picnic area or
by laying out a bicycle cross-track. It has to translate into some
the procurement documents—SROI is a clear condition in the
kind of physical measure.” (Interview with chairman of the program
tenders—but it does nevertheless threaten local participation time-tabling team)
in various ways. The jointly drafted code of conduct for
collaboration between the tendering pool and the resident panel In Case B, the innovative procurement already implied some
is non-committal on both sides; it has no official status, and is form of governance innovation. However, here, too, the goal
more a statement of intent. In addition, there is an escape route was to examine assignments from a broader perspective. The
for the municipality in the tender procedure: if parties do not tender board was designed to discuss possible issues, especially
provide the desired material, the municipality can put the project regarding SROI policy and sustainability. Nevertheless, what we
out to tender again in the traditional way. observed in practice was a strong focus on risk tables, which
In the interviews about Case C, a view was expressed that is a strict, traditional language used to make decisions about
the eight objectives that had been set were “unachievable” and projects and their implementation. Additionally, although the
there was no clear definition of when they had been achieved tenders were more innovative, the approach to the tasks and their
as a matter of fact. Indeed, it is stated that, by taking joint execution was still quite old-fashioned.
responsibility, the neighborhood “will be made physically and In Case C, the project’s orientation was less prominent in the
socially ready for a sustainable future”. Yet this rather vague enthusiasts’ movement, which followed a much more process-
reference to a shared responsibility meant that no one really felt type of approach. Nevertheless, it was present in the structure
accountable for setting and achieving specific goals. sought by the line organization and partly provided by the core
team. There were eight objectives, which had been translated into
“I respect the core team; they keep it going well. It’s difficult because goals; these goals were then themselves translated into resources
it is non-committal. It’s okay for management to say ’we’re going and cash flows and assigned to the management team (MT)
in this direction, come along and I expect results in six months’.
members responsible:
It’s necessary for someone to monitor the process, that agreements
are kept. Now, [those in] the shell around [name project] think: ‘I
“We made a travel plan, translated each ambition into goals
don’t need to do anything with it, I won’t be addressed anyway’.”
and translated them into resources and money streams for which
(Interview with employee in management and implementation)
MT members are responsible, and below that which city and dot
plots contribute to the goals.” (Interview with movement’s core-
Predominant Project Language team member)
Another observation and concern raised in the context of
value integration was the predominance of project-type The project language was thus needed to secure enough support
language—structures and processes, which can also be explained from the internal organization. The movement’s core team also
by the traditional construction sector. Although the goal had to pay specific attention to ensuring it was “visible” to the line
of each of the governance innovations was to (also) adopt organization. This was achieved by, e.g., identifying “SMART”
a district/neighborhood-oriented approach, the project- goals and celebrating specific process successes.
based language continued to dominate, leading to various
value conflicts. DISCUSSION
In Case A, traditional conditions such as the budget, capacity
and policies were used because they provide measurable criteria The drivers of value integration distilled from our case studies
and objectives. Social goals, however, are difficult to translate are not a surprise, since they reflect the findings of previous
into measurable elements and are therefore just omitted. In the research on collaborative governance, policy integration, and

administrative coordination. The importance of institutional governance innovation for value integration, parties encounter
support and a flexible administration, for instance, has already boundaries based on formal responsibilities and accountability
been highlighted in studies like that by Ansell and Gash (2008) structures specific to the construction industry. Despite their
on their, now famous, framework for collaborative governance. often-commendable intentions, governments are still struggling
The same holds true for the importance of trust-building—our to distance themselves from old rational-technical approaches
findings also have clear similarities to the insights in the literature to decision-making and instead adopt those that do justice to
on policy integration, which emphasizes the importance of the dynamic interests of the entire network and contribute to
facilitating institutional structures and appropriate institutional the broader system (Keast et al., 2006; Brown and Head, 2019;
incentives (Tosun and Lang, 2017). Moreover, many authors Joosse and Teisman, 2021). One reason for this is that the
underline the importance of the integrative capacity of the new approaches are often at odds with established bureaucratic
institutional context within which policy integration is sought norms and practices. Consequently, rather than a balance or the
(Candel and Biesbroek, 2016; Domorenok et al., 2021). As integration of values, there are trade-offs between them (Kuitert,
well as confirming the importance of institutional conditions 2021). This also has implications for the spectrum of value
for value integration, our study also highlights the essential integration, which remains quite narrow.
nature of interactional elements, i.e., interactions that start in the Our study adds an important “place-based focus” to these
early phases and are based on mutual trust and understanding. institutional and interactional elements concerning climate-
Whether this involves other public agencies, private partners adaptation measures and value integration. This is in line with
or societal stakeholders/citizens, every attempt to achieve value other literature that emphasizes the benefits of a place-based
integration needs a timely start to get to know each other and approach over one that is people- or sector-related (Bentley
build trust and a shared appreciation of what is required, all of and Pugalis, 2014; Khan et al., 2018). Value controversies and
which are crucial to realizing value integration. opportunities for integration become manifest when plans and
The barriers distilled from our case studies reflect the visions “hit the ground”. Focusing on the specific (e.g., social,
findings of previous research on implementation problems spatial, environmental) characteristics of a neighborhood makes
in highly institutionalized environments and the use of it clear which values are (potentially) at stake and which
boundary spanning. Our findings resonate with earlier work opportunities for integration are available. Here, we can see
that indicate that institutions such as structures and processes that it is easy for bureaucratic (top–down) approaches to value
lead to implementation challenges that emerge particularly when integration to remain rather conceptual and discursive; actual
societal issues are confronted with traditional forms of subsystem implementation happens somewhere else and thus the proof of
policymaking within hierarchical governance systems, in which the pudding misses.
bureaucratic autonomy means that officials can independently
decide for themselves about critical issues (Wellstead and
Biesbroek, 2022). The use of intermediaries is also recognized CONCLUSION
in boundary spanning literature (Nederhand et al., 2019). Our
study also highlights implementation barriers specific to the Our comparative case study comprises three types of governance
construction industry. The dominance of project language and, innovation, all adopted in an attempt to achieve value
as a consequence, the noncommittal inclusion of social and integration in the development of BGI: (1) a top-down case
sustainability goals can be explained by the literature that of programmatic steering to translate value integration into
discusses that traditional construction assessment criteria, such a neighborhood approach; (2) a market-oriented innovative
as the DQI, which assesses functionality, construction quality, procurement approach to local public-private partnership
and the impact of the construction itself, or the traditional projects; and (3) a case of invitational governance for a future-
project assessment values of time, money, and quality, hinder proof neighborhood striving for a sense of citizen ownership.
innovative values (Kuitert, 2021). Our findings thus show This has revealed that all three have been helped by: an enabling,
that public organizations are comfortable with the deliberate institutional context, which is flexible and facilitative; productive
and purposeful value management common in bureaucratic interactions based on reciprocity and mutual trust; and a place-
settings, encompassing matters like policies (e.g., land use) and based approach. All three have also been hindered by the same
regulations (e.g., CO2 emission standards). These are static sort of barriers, with the dominance of “project-thinking” and
approaches, and assume an adequate knowledge-base and the a fervent preoccupation with technical values standing out.
measurability of the values involved in most technical (e.g., Here, we can see that the path-dependency of the infrastructural
sewage) and spatial (e.g., housing) work (Williams et al., 2020). domain, its technical culture, hampers the opportunity for both
This makes it difficult for them to engage in the more explorative an equal dialogue with other domains and a goal-seeking process
and goal-seeking processes that are crucial for achieving value moving toward achieving the better integration of concepts
integration. Moreover, their focus is on the values that their and solutions.
own agency or sector views as being key, making it difficult Our findings lead us to conclude that value integration
to treat everyone else’s with the same care. Despite attempts to requires innovation in all three of the ways examined. It is
involve social and sustainability actors in new ways, the cases not enough for public bureaucracies to attempt to achieve
show how such values have to be adapted to the systems and value integration using top-down, bureaucratic innovation, since
methods of the technical and spatial disciplines. In the process of the main weakness of this approach concerns the link with

implementation, i.e., the difficult step of moving away from partnership and (long-term) involvement can thus trigger the
abstract plans and ideas toward the public spaces in which innovative potential.
they have to be realized. In that sense, bureaucratic innovation We therefore conclude with a plea: approaching the issue of
needs social innovation to link policy ideas and concepts to value integration in BGI as a quest for hybrid governance not only
the energy and creativity of citizens and other societal actors. requires all three of the types of innovation identified, but it must
The same also holds true for the reverse relationship. Social also be ensured that they are complementary. Further research
innovation makes an indispensable call for change and is a source is required to clarify which configurations really help and which
of inspiration and vigor, but it cannot become successful in any conditions are essential if they are to succeed.
sustainable way when it is not complemented with bureaucratic
innovation. To be successful in regular or socially innovative DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
public-private partnerships, city governments should organize
themselves internally so that, at the very least, they speak with The datasets presented in this article are not readily available
one voice. Nevertheless, as is the case with the more bureaucratic because they contain information that could compromise the
approach, innovative procurement also has to bridge the gap privacy of study participants. Participants of this study did not
with the actors in the specific neighborhood in which the BGI is agree for their data to be shared publicly. Requests to access the
planned. It is only by actively involving these actors that the entire datasets should be directed to LK and require permission from
range of options for value integration can be explored. Moreover, the participants involved.
the energy of these actors is often essential to ensuring the success
of such associations, not only today, but also tomorrow. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
This paper carefully uncovers a triple-helix perspective on
value integration in which three different governance logics LK and AB worked together to conceptualize. LK led the
(hierarchy, network, and market) complement and presuppose data analysis. AB provided funding acquisition for case A and
the success of each other. To realize and sustain value integration C. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the
when concrete measures materialize on the ground requires submitted version.
sectoral policies to come together and the alignment of the
different ambitions and agendas of those within the city FUNDING
administration. It is also just as important that actors who
give meaning to and enact the public space in which BGI is This work was supported by BEGIN project—Interreg VB North
planned are involved in its design and maintenance. These Sea Region Programme, the Dutch Construction Client Forum
stakeholders are able to attach their own values to these spaces and the City of Rotterdam.
and know what can make a difference given the spatial, social, and
cultural characteristics of that particular space. Their practical ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
knowledge and organizing capacity are important building-
blocks in creating BGI and sustaining it in the longer term. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Hans Joosse for
Finally, involving private actors in more innovative ways also sharing the data for case study C. Our sincere gratitude goes to
brings with it their creativity and knowledge. Novel forms of the municipalities for opening up their organizations.
REFERENCES Bygballe, L. E., and Swärd, A. (2019). Collaborative project delivery models and the
role of routines in institutionalizing partnering. Project Manage. J. 50, 161–176.
Anguelovsk, I., Connolly, J. J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H., and Pearsall, H. doi: 10.1177/8756972818820213
(2019). New scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban Caldwell, N. D., Roehrich, J. K., and George, G. (2017). Social value creation and
‘green turn’ mean and where is it going? Progress Hum. Geogr. 43, 1064–1086. relational coordination in public-private collaborations. J. Manage. Stud. 54,
doi: 10.1177/0309132518803799 906–928. doi: 10.1111/joms.12268
Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Candel, J. J., and Biesbroek, R. (2016). Toward a processual understanding of policy
Pract. Admin. Tes. Theor. 18, 543–571. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum032 integration. Policy Sci. 9, 211–231. doi: 10.1007/s11077-016-9248-y
Ansell, C., Sørensen, E., and Torfing, J. (2017). Improving policy Carmin, J. A., Anguelovski, I., and Roberts, D. (2012). Urban climate adaptation in
implementation through collaborative policymaking. Policy Polit. 45, 467–486. the global south: planning in an emerging policy domain. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 32,
doi: 10.1332/030557317X14972799760260 18–32. doi: 10.1177/0739456X11430951
Bentley, G., and Pugalis, L. (2014). Shifting paradigms: people-centred models, Cejudo, G. M., and Michel, C. L. (2017). Addressing fragmented government
active regional development, space-blind policies and place-based approaches. action: coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sci. 50, 745–767.
Local Econ. 29, 283–294. doi: 10.1177/0269094214541355 doi: 10.1007/s11077-017-9281-5
Brown, P. R., and Head, B. W. (2019). Navigating tensions in co-production: Choi, C., Berry, p., and Smith, A. (2021). The climate benefits, co-benefits, and
a missing link in leadership for public value. Public Admin. 97, 250–263. trade-offs of green infrastructure: a systematic literature review. J. Environ.
doi: 10.1111/padm.12394 Manage. 291, 112583. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112583
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Christensen, T., and Lægreid, p. (2007). The whole-of-government
moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public approach to public sector reform. Public Adm. Rev. 67, 1059–1066.
management. Public Adm. Rev. 74, 445–456. doi: 10.1111/puar.12238 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00797.x

De Graaf, G., and Paanakker, H. (2015). Good governance: performance values Keast, R., and Hampson, K. (2007). Building constructive innovation networks:
and procedural values in conflict. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 45, 635–652. role of relationship management. J. Construct. Eng. Manage. 133, 364–373.
doi: 10.1177/0275074014529361 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:5(364)
Deletic, A., Qu, J., Bach, p. M., Liu, G., Wang, A., Zhang, K., et al. (2020). The Keast, R., Mandell, M., and Brown, K. A. (2006). Mixing state, market and network
multi-faceted nature of Blue-Green Systems coming to light. Blue-Green Syst. governance modes: the role of government in “crowded” policy domains. Int. J.
2, 186–187. doi: 10.2166/bgs.2020.002 Organ. Theor. Behav. 9, 27–50. doi: 10.1108/IJOTB-09-01-2006-B002
Domorenok, E., Graziano, P., and Polverari, L. (2021). Introduction: policy Khan, A., Charles, A., and Armitage, D. (2018). Place-based or sector-based
integration and institutional capacity: theoretical, conceptual and empirical adaptation? A case study of municipal and fishery policy integration. Climate
challenges. Policy Soc. 40, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2021.1902058 Policy 18, 14–23. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1228520
Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., and Winnubst, M. (2017a). Stakeholder Kiparsky, M., Sedlak, D. L., Thompson, B. H., and Truffer, B. (2013). The
initiatives in flood risk management: exploring the role and impact of bottom- innovation deficit in urban water: the need for an integrated perspective on
up initiatives in three ‘Room for the River’projects in the Netherlands. J. institutions, organizations, and technology. Environ. Eng. Sci. 30, 395–408.
Environ. Plan. Manage. 60, 47–66. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025 doi: 10.1089/ees.2012.0427
Edelenbos, J., van Meerkerk, I., and Koppenjan, J. (2017b). The challenge of Kuitert, L. (2021). The balancing act: How public construction clients safeguard
innovating politics in community self-organization: the case of Broekpolder. public values in a changing construction industry. A+ BE| Arch. Built
Public Manage. Rev. 19, 55–73. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1200663 Environ. 3:1–234. doi: 10.7480/abe.2021.06
Eriksson, p. E. (2013). Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Laegreid, p. (2016). Public administration theories: instrumental and
development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational value rationality book review. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 26, 588–590.
levels in construction companies. Int. J. Project Manage. 31, 333–341. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv050
doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.07.005 Mair, J., Mayer, J., and Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality:
Farrelly, M., and Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organ. Stud. 36, 713–739.
experimentation as a way forward? Global Environ. Change 21, 721–732. doi: 10.1177/0170840615580007
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.007 Martinsuo, M., Klakegg, O. J., and van Marrewijk, A. (2019). Delivering value
Flick, U. (2013). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. Newcastle upon in projects and project-based business. Int. J. Project Manage. 37, 631–635.
Tyne, UK: Sage. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.011
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., and Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: what it is,
Inquiry 12, 219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363 why it matters, how it can be accelerated.
Ford, R. M., Rawluk, A., and Williams, K. J. (2019). Managing values Nederhand, J., Van Der Steen, M., and Van Twist, M. (2019). Boundary-spanning
in disaster planning: current strategies, challenges and opportunities strategies for aligning institutional logics: a typology. Local Gov. Stud. 45,
for incorporating values of the public. Land Use Policy 81, 131–142. 219–240. doi: 10.1080/03003930.2018.1546172
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.029 Nieuwenhuis, E., Cuppen, E., and Langeveld, J. (2022). The role of
Fossestøl, K., Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., and Klemsdal, L. (2015). Managing integration for future urban water systems: identifying dutch urban
institutional complexity in public sector reform: hybridization in front-line water practitioners’ perspectives using Q methodology. Cities 126, 103659.
service organizations. Public Adm. 93, 290–306. doi: 10.1111/padm.12144 doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103659
Godenhjelm, S., Lundin, R. A., and Sjöblom, S. (2015). Projectification in the public Oseland, S. E. (2019). Breaking silos: can cities break down institutional
sector–the case of the European Union. Int. J. Manag. Projects Bus. 8, 324–348. barriers in climate planning? J. Environ. Policy Plan. 21, 345–357.
doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-05-2014-0049 doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2019.1623657
Grandia, J. (2015). Implementing sustainable public procurement: an organisational Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., et al. (2020).
change perspective (Doctoral dissertation), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework
Rotterdam, Netherlands. and 12 propositions. Res. Policy 49, 104080. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.
Hansen, R., Olafsson, A. S., Van Der Jagt, A. P., Rall, E., and Pauleit, S. (2019). 104080
Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: what is the Pozoukidou, G. (2020). Designing a green infrastructure network for metropolitan
state of practice? Ecol. Indic. 96, 99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.042 areas: a spatial planning approach. Euro-Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 5, 1–15.
Head, B. W., and Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: implications for public policy doi: 10.1007/s41207-020-00178-8
and management. Adm. Soc. 47, 711–739. doi: 10.1177/0095399713481601 Rauken, T., Mydske, P. K., and Winsvold, M. (2015). Mainstreaming
Hertin, J., and Berkhout, F. (2003). Analysing institutional strategies for climate change adaptation at the local level. Local Environ. 20, 408–423.
environmental policy integration: the case of EU enterprise policy. J. Environ. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2014.880412
Policy Plan. 5, 39–56. doi: 10.1080/15239080305603 Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, p., Breil, M., Nita, M. R.,
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for et al. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits
managing complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29, 871–893. of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 15–24.
doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00110-4 doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
Hodgson, D., Fred, M., Bailey, S., and Hall, P. (2019). The Projectification of the Sharifi, A., Pathak, M., Joshi, C., and He, B. J. (2021). A systematic review of the
Public Sector. Milton Park, Zimbabwe: Routledge. health co-benefits of urban climate change adaptation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 74,
Johnston, M. P. (2017). Secondary data analysis: a method of which the time has 103190. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2021.103190
come. Qual. Quan. Methods Libr. 3, 619–626. Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, p., Burke, G. T., and Spee, p. (2015). Reinsurance
Joosse, H., and Teisman, G. (2021). Employing complexity: complexification trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics
management for locked issues. Public Manage. Rev. 23, 843–864. in practice. Acad. Manage. J. 58, 932–970. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0638
doi: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1708435 Stafford, A., and Stapleton, p. (2017). Examining the use of corporate governance
Jørgensen, T. H., Remmen, A., and Mellado, M. D. (2006). Integrated management mechanisms in public–private partnerships: why do they not deliver public
systems–three different levels of integration. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 713–722. accountability? Aust. J. Public Adm. 76, 378–391. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12237
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.04.005 Steenhuisen, B., Dicke, W., and De Bruijn, H. (2009). “Soft” public values
Karré, p. M. (2018). Navigating between opportunities and risks: in jeopardy: Reflecting on the institutionally fragmented situation in
the effects of hybridity for social enterprises engaged in social utility sectors. Int. J. Public Adm. 32, 491–507. doi: 10.1080/019006909028
innovation. J. Entrep. Organ. Divers. 7, 37–60. doi: 10.5947/jeod.20 61753
18.003 Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: a new narrative for networked
Keast, R., Brown, K., and Mandell, M. (2007). Getting the right mix: unpacking governance? Am. Rev. Public Adm. 36, 41–57. doi: 10.1177/0275074005282583
integration meanings and strategies. Int. Public Manage. J. 10, 9–33. Thacher, D., and Rein, M. (2004). Managing value conflict in public policy.
doi: 10.1080/10967490601185716 Governance 17, 457–486. doi: 10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00254.x

Torfing, J., and Triantafillou, p. (2013). What’s in a name? Grasping new public Current Opin. Environ. Sustain. 54, 101155. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2022.1
governance as a political-administrative system. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 18, 9–25. 01155
doi: 10.1080/12294659.2013.10805250 Willems, J. J., Molenveld, A., Voorberg, W., and Brinkman, G. (2020). Diverging
Tosun, J., and Lang, A. (2017). Policy integration: mapping different concepts. ambitions and instruments for citizen participation across different stages
Policy Stud. 38, 553–570. doi: 10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239 in green infrastructure projects. Urban Plan. 5, 22–32. doi: 10.17645/up.v5i
Trein, p., and Maggetti, M. (2020). Patterns of policy integration and 1.2613
administrative coordination reforms: a comparative empirical analysis. Public Williams, K. J., Ford, R. M., and Rawluk, A. (2020). The role of collaborative
Adm. Rev. 80, 198–208. doi: 10.1111/puar.13117 research in learning to incorporate values of the public in social ecological
Trein, p., Maggetti, M., and Meyer, I. (2021). Necessary conditions for policy system governance: case study of bushfire risk planning. Ecol Soc. 25 (4).
integration and administrative coordination reforms: an exploratory analysis. doi: 10.5751/ES-11987-250431
J. Eur. Public Policy 28, 1410–1431. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2020.1788121 Wittmayer, J. M., de Geus, T., Pel, B., Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Hoppe, T.,
Vaara, E., and Whittington, R. (2012). Strategy-as-practice: taking et al. (2020). Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social
social practices seriously. Acad. Manage. Annals 6, 285–336. innovation in socio-technical energy systems. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101689.
doi: 10.5465/19416520.2012.672039 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101689
Van Buuren, A., Vreugdenhil, H., Verkerk, J. V. P., and Ellen, G. J. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks:
(2016). “Beyond the pilot paradox How the success conditions of pilots Sage publications.
also hinder their up-scaling in climate governance,” in Workshop: Beyond
experiments: Understanding how climate governance innovations become Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
embedded 25th−27th April, Workshop Erasmus University Rotterdam. absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
Van Zyl, B., Lategan, L. G., Cilliers, E. J., and Cilliers, S. S. (2021). An potential conflict of interest.
exploratory case-study approach to understand multifunctionality in urban
green infrastructure planning in a South African context. Front. Sustain. Cities. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
3:725539. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2021.725539 and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
Vigar, G. (2009). Towards an integrated spatial planning? Eur. Plann. Stud. 17,
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
1571–1590. doi: 10.1080/09654310903226499
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
Visser, W. (2017). Integrated value: what it is, what it’s not and why it’s important.
Huffington Post 9, 2017. endorsed by the publisher.
Wamsler, C., Wickenberg, B., Hanson, H., Olsson, J. A., Stålhammar, S., Björn, Copyright © 2022 Kuitert and van Buuren. This is an open-access article distributed
H., et al. (2020). Environmental and climate policy integration: targeted under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
strategies for overcoming barriers to nature-based solutions and climate change distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
adaptation. J. Clean. Prod. 247, 119154. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119154 author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication
Wellstead, A. M., and Biesbroek, R. (2022). Finding the sweet spot in climate in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
policy: balancing stakeholder engagement with bureaucratic autonomy. distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

APPENDIX
TABLE A1 | Overview of data.
Case A
Interviews Interviews with 3 members of the programming table, 3 social neighborhood managers, a cluster manager neighborhood, an advisor
climate adaption and external actors hired to develop the neighborhood approach. And specifically, about the pilot project: the
coordinator of the blue green task, the project leader, the social neighborhood manager, the welfare partner, a neighborhood manager
of a housing association and a member of the sports council.
Observations Programming meeting; own reporting and minutes.
Documents Blue Green Strategy, Memo Implementation Program Table Public Space (POR), Neighborhood approach Dordrecht, Neighborhood
Approach 2020 (TNO), presentation incorporation Neighborhood approach in POR, presentation City Deal. Project level: Assignment
Letters, commissioning letter and starting memos, IPM form, Marketing and communication approach to green passage, application
Living Lab, plan of approach living lab, report results living lab, flyers and media coverage.
Case B
Interviews The directors of the management and development departments, the general integrity coordinator, those that are responsible for policy
and assessment of procurement, program managers or internal advisors for either innovation or sustainability, the person responsible
for socially responsible procurement, the person responsible for finance and/or control, and for managing functions around the use of
(new) forms of contracts. Project level: Alderman, Urban district managers, general project manager. Procurement consultant,
representative of the urban management department, Landscape architect, communication consultant, project manager tender pool,
project manager resident panel, residents’ organizations, cultural association, two housing associations, two neighborhood
organizations and a community worker and youth worker.
Observations Tender pool gatherings (3x) and residents’ panel meetings (3x) over a period of 19 months 4 months of observations of the project,
including 4 tender pool board meetings, project evaluation meeting, start meeting of innovation workgroup and multiple monthly project
team meetings (over a period of 19 months).
Documents Websites: municipal website, municipal intranet, TenderNet (tenders are published on this website), commissioning letters
(decision-making), various municipal programs: neighborhood program, citizen participation action plan, innovative participation
approach, municipal procurement regulations. Various documents related to the project, including the process document, media
coverage, folders, project website, neighborhood magazine.
Case C
Interviews Interviews with multiple members of the movement and core team: neighborhood managers, head of Urban Management,
employment and Income Project Leader, city laborer/ advisor civil engineering works (urban management), area networker, employees
(2) Management and Implementation, kwartiermaker energy transition, employee of foundation Tussentuin, travel director of
communication and organization / communication advisor City management, program manager, district manager, transition
manager/head of area development, project leader digital management,
Observations Meetings of core team (20x).
Documents Booklet Transforming the City, report exploratory session, multiple movement-reports, factsheets, booklet hackatlon, Energy-map,
Opportunity-map, travel guide, movement plan, participation stories.

Forest Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forest Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 20 July 2022

Delivering Blue-Green Infrastructure:

Realizing a multifunctional blue-green infrastructure (BGI) as a nature-based solution for

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 1 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 2 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 3 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 4 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 5 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

TABLE 1 | Introduction to the case studies.

Case A Case B Case C

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 6 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 7 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

In Case B, the construction of a city park with high social-

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 8 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 9 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 10 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 11 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 12 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 13 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 14 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 15 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 16 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

Frontiers in Sustainable Cities | www.frontiersin.org 17 July 2022 | Volume 4 | Article 885951

You might also like