collaborative decision-making in green and blue
TRANSCRIPT
IN DEGREE PROJECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS
, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020
Collaborative decision-making in green and blue infrastructure projects: The case of Copenhagen’s Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade
JAMIE NICOLE ZOURAS
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
Collaborative decision-making in green and blue
infrastructure projects: The case of Copenhagen’s Hans
Tavsens Park and Korsgade
Jamie Nicole Zouras | MSc Thesis Sustainable Urban Planning and Design | KTH
School of Architecture and the Built Environment |2020
2
ABSTRACT
Worsening climate change impacts, particularly in coastal areas, are forcing urban planners and designers
to find new approaches to govern cities. Traditional government approaches are failing to equip cities
with effective strategies on how to implement sustainable interventions such as green and blue
infrastructure. Adaptive governance has emerged as a way of dealing with the inherent uncertainty and
unpredictability of complex social-ecological systems. It is neither top-down nor bottom-up but involves
innovative ways of solving problems with emphasis on collaborative decision-making. This research
focuses specifically on how collaboration is undertaken in adaptive governance processes by examining
The Soul of Nørrebro case study—an integrated urban design and climate adaptation project for Hans
Tavsens Park and Korsgade in Copenhagen, Denmark. Through desk study and interviews, the study
identifies which stakeholders are involved in collaborative-decision making processes and how
stakeholders envision, implement, and contest collaborative decision-making in green and blue
infrastructure projects. This research found that participation from a wide range of local stakeholders and
citizens is an integral part of redesigning public space, as it helps create cohesive, just, and ecologically
productive environments. However, trade-offs that result in political decisions that are desirable to some
and not to others cannot be avoided in the end. While certain setbacks were unavoidable, others that
were encountered could have perhaps been prevented through increased transdisciplinary and
representative collaboration.
KEYWORDS
Green and blue infrastructure, adaptive governance, collaborative decision-making, community
involvement, social-ecological resilience, urban sustainable transitions, climate change adaptation
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Andy Karvonen, for his guidance through all stages of
this project. From the start, Andy was supportive of my research interests and offered his insights into
relevant topics. During supervision meetings, he helped me think through ideas, navigate the degree
project process, and he encouraged me to stick to the process, especially in uncertain times. Andy’s
feedback, comments, and suggestions were clearly communicated, helping me realize and develop my
abilities in academic research and writing. Andy’s enthusiasm, humor, and easy-going nature greatly
inspired my work and made this process significantly more manageable.
Thank you to The Soul of Nørrebro interview participants for having been so generous with their time,
knowledge, and insights. Each individual was genuinely dedicated to helping me understand and analyze
the project, making for an exciting final project.
I would also like to convey my sincere thanks to Ellen Zouras who reviewed earlier drafts, motivated me
during challenges times, and nourished me with delicious food throughout my thesis journey; Andy
Muehlhausen for solving technical difficulties during online interviews and for his dependable positive
energy; and Julian Bauer for helping keep my spirits high.
Lastly, I am much obliged to my parents for their continued support, encouragement, and love.
Jamie Nicole Zouras
Stockholm, June 2020
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Green and blue infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 8
2.2 The Soul of Nørrebro case study ......................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Public participation in Denmark and the need for advanced collaborative processes .................... 15
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 17
3.1 Applying resilience thinking and new modes of governance ........................................................... 17
3.2 Collaborative decision-making .......................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Transdisciplinarity ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Reflexivity ................................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 Sense of belonging, pride, and ownership ................................................................................. 22
3.2.4 Trade-offs ................................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.5 Representativeness .................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.6 Distribution of power ................................................................................................................. 24
4. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Research design ................................................................................................................................ 28
4.2 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Scope and limitations ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.4 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................................................... 33
5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Actors involved in decision-making .................................................................................................. 34
5.1.1 Broad stakeholder engagement ................................................................................................. 34
5.1.2 Community involvement ............................................................................................................ 36
5.2 Stakeholder visions, implementation, and contestations of collaborative decision-making ........... 37
5.2.1 Transdisciplinarity and reflexivity .............................................................................................. 37
5.2.2 Sense of belonging, pride, and ownership ................................................................................. 41
5.2.3 Trade-offs ................................................................................................................................... 42
5.2.4 Representativeness .................................................................................................................... 45
5.2.5 Distribution of power ................................................................................................................. 47
5
6. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 49
6.1 Reflections on key learnings ............................................................................................................. 49
6.2 Concluding remarks .......................................................................................................................... 51
6.3 Suggestions for future research ........................................................................................................ 52
7. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................. 54
8. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 55
9. APPENDICIES ....................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix A: interview questions ............................................................................................................ 71
6
1. INTRODUCTION
The world population is projected to increase to over 8 billion by 2025, and by 2050, 68% of the world’s
population is expected to live in urban areas (UN DESA, 2019; UN DESA, 2018). Finding long-term solutions
for the ever-growing demand for clean air and water, habitat preservation, and reduction of carbon
emissions has become increasingly challenging for urban planners and decision-makers (IPCC, 2018). As
cities expand to accommodate the growing population, natural landscapes are increasingly disrupted by
impermeable asphalt roads, concrete sidewalks and parking lots, commercial structures, and housing
developments (Chithra et al., 2015). These impenetrable surfaces prohibit the infiltration of water into
the soil, resulting in increased pollution from runoff, degraded water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and
excessive flooding (ibid.). Furthermore, the positive correlation between urbanization and both habitat
loss and habitat fragmentation is increasingly detrimental, as urban development destroys wetlands,
forests, and grasslands (Liu, He and Wu, 2016). Altering, eliminating, and decreasing the connectivity of
habitat negatively impacts plant and animal diversity and species richness (Wilson et al., 2015). These
ecological consequences not only diminish ecosystem resilience, carbon storage, and local climate
stabilization (Jim and Chen, 2008; Stewart and Oke, 2012; Kabisch, 2015), but they also have profound
impacts on human well-being, public health, and urban livability.
To address the ecological impacts of rapid urbanization, urban planners and landscape architects have
developed green and blue infrastructure, or GBI, to decrease or replace traditional gray infrastructure,
which is concrete-dominated and single-functioned (Lovell and Taylor, 2013; Casal-Campos et al., 2015;
Sinnett, Smith and Burgess, 2015; Bingham et al., 2018; Somarakis, Stagakis and Chrysoulakis, 2019).
Incorporating GBI into urban areas fosters ecological, social, cultural, and economic resilience in many
ways. The European Union recognizes that GBI can mitigate the urban heat island effect and natural
disasters, improve water filtration and help maintain water table levels, prevent soil erosion and boost
soil functions, boost plant and animal biodiversity, and sequester carbon. Green spaces can also deliver
cleaner air and drinking water, strengthen ecological values and the human-nature connection, repair
environmental burdens, and prevent social exclusion and isolation. Furthermore, GBI instils ecological
integrity and produces essential spaces that are vital to well-being and cultural heritage (COM 2013/0249
final, 2013).
GBI offers benefits that are critical for designing multi-functionality in urbanized areas. While GBI projects
emphasize what to implement and why, cities must develop effective strategies on how to implement
them. GBI involves modifying complex ecological and social processes, but traditional, top-down
government arrangements are unidirectional, making it difficult to deal with the ‘wicked’ problems that
GBI aims to address (Acuto, 2013; Rittel and Webber, 1973). Many cities have limited resources and
knowledge to navigate urgent dilemmas in the most effective way, so they often resort to conventional
ways of controlling wicked problems like climate change, which aim to simplify complexity to arrive at a
guaranteed consensus. To use GBI as an effective tool that achieves multi-functionality, a governing
framework based on co-produced knowledge, iterative dialogues, and learning needs to be embedded in
science, policy, practice, and society (Kabisch et al., 2016; Nesshöver et al., 2017). Thus, there is an evident
and pressing need to reevaluate the way in which urban social-ecological systems are governed. A new
way of thinking and working with diverse actors is required to create solutions that plan for and accept
society’s dynamic and uncertain exchanges. One way that local governments can do this is by exploring
an adaptive governance framework, which recognizes that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to bringing
7
together new networks of society and establishing long-term institutional collaborations (Frantzeskaki,
Kabisch and McPhearson, 2016).
The aim of this thesis is to investigate how collaborative decision-making supports the development of
long-term, social-ecological resilience in green and blue infrastructure projects. To gain insight into
stakeholder perceptions of collaborative decision-making, this research investigated two questions:
1) Who is involved in decision-making when planning and designing The Soul of Nørrebro GBI
project?
2) How do stakeholders envision, implement, and contest collaborative decision-making in The
Soul of Nørrebro GBI project?
This research involves an analysis of stakeholder perceptions of ‘The Soul of Nørrebro’ green and blue
infrastructure project in Copenhagen, Denmark to reveal how adaptive governance influences the
implementation of nature-based projects and how this informs social-ecological resilience. Based on desk
study and interviews, this study considered the involvement of the following stakeholder groups: the
Municipality of Copenhagen, SLA (landscape architecture design firm), the University of Copenhagen,
Rambøll (engineering consultancy company), MiljøPunkt Nørrebro (local environmental organization), the
Nørrebro community focus group (named ‘hurtiggruppen’ in Danish), and Urban Renewal Nørrebro (a
site-specific organization focused on revitalizing neighborhoods; called Områdefornyelse in Danish). This
study found that the municipality does not just want feedback from the community, but they want them
to develop and steer the project. There is an ongoing dialogue to best determine how Hans Tavsens Park
and Korsgade will be planned, but trade-offs that result in political decisions that are desirable to some
and not to others cannot be avoided in the end. While certain setbacks were unavoidable, others that
were encountered could have perhaps been prevented through increased transdisciplinary and
representative collaboration.
8
2. BACKGROUND
First, this chapter summarizes the global discourse of green and blue infrastructure and how cities around
the world understand and utilize green and blue infrastructure projects. Next, The Soul of Nørrebro case
study in Copenhagen, Denmark is introduced. Lastly, a need for more advanced collaborative processes
through new modes of governance in Denmark is identified.
2.1 Green and blue infrastructure The concept of incorporating more green space into the built environment can be traced back to the
nineteenth century when landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted touted linking together parks and
nature for the benefit of people (McMahon and Benedict, 2002; Eisenman, 2013). Soon after, concepts of
greenways, landscape ecology, and the Garden City movement became prominent in urban planning, as
consensus among academics, policymakers, and practitioners on the importance of green space grew
(Mell, 2017). Ecologists and biologists have also long recognized the benefits that interconnected green
spaces have on biodiversity to counter habitat fragmentation (McMahon and Benedict, 2002). While the
concept of green space is historically rooted, the term ‘green infrastructure’ is thought to have gained
popularity after a 1999 report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development stated that green
infrastructure strategies “actively seek to understand, leverage, and value the different ecological, social,
and economic functions provided by natural systems in order to guide more efficient and sustainable land
use and development patterns as well as protect ecosystems” (PCDS, 1999, p.64 in McMahon and
Benedict, 2002). Since then, green infrastructure rapidly gained international recognition, and the term
was further explored, expanded, and consolidated in contemporary planning (Mell, 2017).
Green and blue infrastructure (GBI)—a particular type of green infrastructure—emerged as climate
change impacts became more evident and stormwater management became increasingly challenging in
urbanized areas (Liao, Deng and Tan, 2017). The global discourse on GBI broadly describes replacing
engineered structures with natural elements and processes to emphasize the interconnectedness of
aquatic and terrestrial systems (ibid.). GBI commonly incorporates principles of flood mitigation,
biodiversity enhancement, improved water quality, improved physical health and mental well-being,
increased social interaction, inclusion, and cohesion in communities, enhanced quality of public space,
recreation, and leisure, and increased marketability and resale value of homes (Naumann et al., 2011;
Liao, Deng and Tan, 2017; Brears, 2018). Synonyms for GBI and related terms include: Stormwater Best
Management Practices, Low Impact Development, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, Nature-Based
Services, Integrated Urban Water Management, Water Sensitive Urban Design, ABC (Active, Beautiful and
Clean), Waters Programme, the Sponge City Initiative, etc. (Fletcher et al., 2014). The terminology and
definitions of GBI vary depending on the source, regional perspective, and context. This study uses the
European Commission’s (COM 2013/0249 final, 2013) working definition of GBI, as follows:
A strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental
features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates
green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in
terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas.
While GBI emerged as a popular agenda in recent years, the practice is not new and is increasingly being
embraced as a multifunctional resiliency tool in many cities (Liao, Deng and Tan, 2017). Driven by the
worsening, burdensome financial effects of climate change, cities are more commonly using their locally
9
elected officials to push forward impactful climate policy (C40.org, 2012). One example of this is Seattle,
Washington, where water and nature have historically been a large part of the region’s identity,
infrastructure, and economy (Karvonen, 2010). When late nineteenth and early twentieth century
traditional engineering of the land exacerbated widespread problems like landslides, drainage, and runoff,
the city began to rethink urban nature and created natural and low-impact projects like bioswales,
pervious paving, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting to restore the land. The lush vegetation resolved
many of the city’s ecological issues, improved social aspects of urban design, and boosted Seattle’s
resident engagement in community decision-making (ibid.). Other examples include Toronto, Canada and
several cities across the Netherlands that are vulnerable to extreme flooding from increased rainfall.
These cities have strategically invested in GBI to complement traditional pipe and sewer systems, improve
water quality, reduce rapid fluctuations in stormwater flow, act as shade cover during heat waves, foster
habitat for wildlife, increase property value, provide greenery for aesthetic purposes, and more (Empey
et al., 2016). These examples demonstrate that GBI projects are being implemented in many cities—
especially large, coastal cities—to realize the multi-faceted benefits of GBI. While there is increasing
consensus that it is in the best interest of cities to carry out GBI projects at all scales, there is a need for
detailed study of how GBI processes are being implemented.
2.2 The Soul of Nørrebro case study Copenhagen is known as a pioneer in implementing innovative climate adaptation and stormwater
management projects that provide greater social, environmental, and economic benefits to the city
(Brears, 2018). The Soul of Nørrebro is a green and blue infrastructure project that is being implemented
in Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade in the Nørrebro neighborhood of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Figure 1: the Nørrebro neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark. Source: Google Maps.
Figure 2: project at Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade. Source: SLA / Beauty and the Bit.
10
Figure 3: Hans Tavsens Park before the design proposal, captured in 2016. Source: SLA.
The Soul of Nørrebro will consist of three urban spaces (Hans Tavsens Park, Korsgade street, and Blågård
School area) in a 85,000 m2 area that also serves as the home to 25,000 residents (SLA, 2016). The urban
design project—viewed as an exemplary model for Nordic cities—was the winner of the 2016 Nordic Built
Cities Challenge, which aimed at the development and visualization of innovative solutions for livable,
smart, and sustainable cities (Ramboll, 2016b). The project proposal was submitted by SLA, a group of
urban quality experts and designers specializing in the fields of landscape architecture and urban planning,
beating out 145 entries from all six Nordic countries (Ramboll Group, 2016). The initial planning and
conceptual phases for the project began in 2018, and implementation is estimated to be completed in
2024 with help from the multi-stakeholder team, which includes SLA, Rambøll, the Municipality of
Copenhagen, HOFOR Greater Copenhagen Utility, and Urban Renewal. Project completion was originally
intended for 2022, but the planning and design phases have taken longer than anticipated. The project,
funded by the Municipality of Copenhagen and HOFOR Utility, is estimated to cost EUR 18 million (135
million Danish Krone), yet this is expected to change due to unforeseen modifications to the plan (SLA,
2016).
11
Figure 4: The Soul of Nørrebro proposed plan for Hans Tavsens Park – tranquility after a cloudburst. Source: SLA / Beauty and the Bit.
The Soul of Nørrebro is one of many rainwater management initiatives sought after when a sudden bout
of precipitation on 2 July 2011 resulted in extreme flooding and infrastructural damage, costing
approximately EUR 800 million in insurance claims (HOFOR, 2016). Heavy rains, or cloudbursts, are only
expected to become more frequent, especially in coastal cities like Copenhagen (IPCC, 2018). The Soul of
Nørrebro focuses on multifunctionality, addressing both climate adaptation and social renewal. The new
robust landscape will not only mitigate flooding but contribute to food growing, noise reduction, lower
CO2 emissions, and improving air quality. Furthermore, it will create more aesthetic and pleasing green
spaces for the community to enjoy—whether it be a place to meditate in tranquility or have a quiet
conversation, or a place to meet friends, make noise, or boisterously play (Nordic Built Cities Challenge,
2016). The project has been praised by the unanimous Nordic Built Cities Challenge jury for including the
local citizens in holistically integrating storm water management, biodiversity, culture, recreation, peace
of mind, learning, play, and everyday urban life for residents and visitors through its humanistic and
nature-based design of shared public space (Landezine, 2016). Greenery will create new and improved
hydrological, biological, and social ecosystems in Nørrebro that will clean water, prevent flooding, and
improve access to nature and quality of life for local inhabitants (SLA, 2016; Nordic Built Cities Challenge,
2016).
12
Figure 5: proposed plan for everyday and cloudburst rain to be collected in Hans Tavsens Park and led down Korsgade street to the lake, as indicated by the author’s arrow. Source: SLA / Beauty and the Bit.
Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade will accommodate approximately 5,000-7,000 m3 of rainwater at one
time. (It was initially estimated that 18,000 m3 of water would need to be accounted for, but after the
city’s master plan on cloudburst management changed, the team had to adjust plans to reduce capacity
by a significant two-thirds.) Instead of using traditional solutions to urban flooding like digging wider
sewers, increasing impermeable surfaces, and using technological devices, the area’s topography, soil,
and vegetation will accommodate climate change solutions by creating efficient catchment basins, green
corridors, and cleansing biotrophs. This will result in the regulation of urban microclimate and nature-
based management of torrential rains by diverting water runoff from roofs and roads into nearby lakes,
where the water will be biologically purified on its way, thereby enhancing the water quality of
Copenhagen lakes. The proposed plan will replace areas of wide-open grass with water-loving plants and
lush underbrush to increase filtration (Figure 4), replace concrete with permeable pavement and green
sidewalk gardens (Figure 7), and utilize the edges of Hans Tavsens Park to create opportunity for urban
nature to be cultivated and shared by nearby schoolchildren (Figure 9). These proposed changes aim to
establish niches for the community to shape according to changing desires, break up street monotony
while maintaining the area’s characteristic street art and red brick aesthetic, and create a smoother
transition between the park, school courtyards, and nearby church, thus bringing adults and the youth
closer together (SLA, 2016).
13
Figure 6: Korsgade street, captured in December 2018. Source: Google Maps.
Figure 7: proposed plan for Korsgade street during torrential rain. Source: SLA / Beauty and the Bit.
14
Figure 8: urban space between two school yards, captured in November 2012. Source: Google Maps.
Figure 9: proposed plan for urban space between two school yards. Source: SLA / Beauty and the Bit.
Located in Copenhagen’s city center, Nørrebro can be characterized as a place of cultural exchange and is
known as “the beating heart of the city” (Nordic Built Cities Challenge, 2016, p.5). Nørrebro, Copenhagen’s
most densely populated neighborhood with the least amount of green space per citizen, is also
characterized as one of six disadvantaged areas in Copenhagen that “have stagnated in relation to the
city's overall development and therefore have a special need for social development and physical
investments” (Københavns Kommune, 2012, p.14). Moreover, these challenges are unevenly distributed
within Nørrebro, particularly regarding the one-sided composition of residents with low-income, criminal
records, and from non-Western origin (ibid.). With this in mind, the green-blue project is based on
collaboration and co-creation to capture the area’s diverse inhabitants, and it has been widely
15
acknowledged for its continuous community engagement efforts to understand people’s needs. This
includes informational meetings, workshops, and city walks with residents and the nearby cemetery and
church, as well as involving the two onsite schools and school children. The project also plans to engage
the community throughout the construction and maintenance phases to create a more permanent
participatory process (SLA, 2016). Based on local and site-specific knowledge, the goal is to end up with
“a greener, happier, more socially and culturally inclusive – as well as a more resilient and healthy – city”
(SLA, 2016, p.8). The Soul of Nørrebro is framed as a necessary intervention to mitigate flooding, yet it is
not simply viewed as a technical, ecological intervention but an opportunity to recast social relations.
Thus, the stakeholder team has adopted an innovative, collaborative approach to implementing plans that
touch on multiple aspects of urban life.
2.3 Public participation in Denmark and the need for advanced collaborative processes Denmark has developed a reputation for being a frontrunner in sustainable development based on its
strong political body that supports a decentralized public sector and its commitment to developing and
sustaining partnerships (Ministry of Finance, 2017). This is thought to be partially attributed to the
country’s routine planning practices that involve citizens, as “In Denmark, public participation through
public hearings is mandatory in the process of making comprehensive municipal plans” (Hedensted Lund
et al., 2012, p.615). However, climate change adaptation and spatial planning have historically “operated
with strict hierarchical orders and division of tasks and competences between different government levels
and clear boundaries between public and private actors,” creating a barrier for cross-sector collaboration
(ibid.). It is common for planning professionals to believe that expert knowledge is too technical to convey
to the public (Hedensted Lund et al., 2012), suggesting that mandatory public participation may not be
effective in sustaining partnerships, as communication remains unidirectional, where specialized
government sectors define what climate change adaptation entails and how to go about solving complex
challenges. Climate change adaptation for many planners in Denmark continues to be dominated by
sector policy and technical professionals. While building relationships between actors across scales is key
for effective collaboration, Denmark’s institutional planning processes do not foster advanced
collaborative processes. In the last decade, however, initiatives have emerged that show a trending
transition to modes of governance that incorporate values and resources from the bottom-up (Hedensted
Lund et al., 2012; Blok et al., 2019).
A study that investigated the governance arrangements around municipal green space maintenance in
ten Danish municipalities showed that, in all ten municipalities, non-government actors were included in
public involvement initiatives due to the widely recognized benefits of including local residents in the
decision-making of their environments, namely, enhanced feelings of ownership, increased sense of
community, heightened awareness of climate change issues, and decrease in vandalism (Molin and
Konijnendijk, 2014). However, the study reiterates that in Denmark, a traditional structure that reflects
hierarchical governance is used in green space projects. The study suggests that recent trends of
transitioning to co-governance in local authorities—where decision-making power is shared with other
actors—calls out a need for increased training and expertise on public involvement (ibid.). This would help
address challenges of representativeness, time constraints, managing disappointments, dividing
responsibilities, and balancing lay and scientific knowledge. In fact, a wider understanding of changing
governance arrangements in urban green space management and maintenance is necessary (Molin and
Konijnendijk, 2014).
16
In The Soul of Nørrebro case study, Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade must be transformed into a climate
adaptive system that provides long-term protection against flooding while continually accommodating
the needs of local community members and visitors. Thus, the project can be characterized as a social-
ecological system, which, in this thesis, is understood as a system that integrates the way people think,
study, and analyze humanity's dependence and influence on nature (Fischer et al., 2015;
Berkes, Colding, and Folke, 2003). Folke et al. (2010, p.3) define a social-ecological system as an
“Integrated system of ecosystems and human society with reciprocal feedback and interdependence.”
The interplay between The Soul of Nørrebro’s biological, hydraulic, and social perspectives is thus critical
to arrive at a central, agreed upon vision to move the initiative forward, move past conflicting interests,
and properly integrate the project into other systems. To do so, a holistic perspective is needed and can
perhaps be achieved through more effective collaborative processes.
Many scholars agree that the complexity of social-ecological systems must be governed holistically, taking
multiple types of information into account (Dietz, Ostrom and Stern, 2003; Pereira et al., 2015; Buizer et
al., 2015). This arguably makes collaboration in planning an even more important approach to creating
culture, knowledge, and learning processes. By telling stories, finding commonalities, increasing efforts to
establish trust, and being transparent about underlying goals, concerns, and methods, societies can
perhaps cope with and overcome problems in a way that is more unified and sustainable. However,
planners must collaborate by integrating perspectives across institutions at multiple levels—moving past
unidirectional communication that hierarchical government reinforces, despite efforts to sustain
partnerships and expand networks through mandatory public participation hearings. More advanced
collaborative processes must be fostered through new modes of governance, yet it can be challenging to
determine which governing processes are best for creating climate resilient landscapes while preserving
each neighborhood’s cultural identity and social fabric. The collaborative approach in The Soul of Nørrebro
seemingly reflects a turn towards adaptive governance that is participatory and emergent, trying to break
through the barriers that traditional governmental divisions often create.
Adaptive governance has emerged as a way of dealing with the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability
of complex social-ecological systems to achieve resilience. Collaboration is a key aspect of adaptive
governance that encourages collective decision-making and co-production of knowledge with
representatives from government agencies, businesses, non-profits, the academic sector, and the local
community to ensure that complex demands are met in the fairest way possible. As Olsson et al. (2006,
p.13) describe, “Linking different networks and creating opportunities for new interactions are important
when dealing with uncertainty and change.” While multi-stakeholder governance aims to achieve a
collective goal through diverse stakeholder partnerships, adaptive governance goes one step further to
collectively achieve resilience by emphasizing the need for flexibility to embrace the inherent uncertainty
and unpredictability of complex social-ecological systems (Folke et al., 2005). It emphasizes that not only
must collaboration be prioritized across governmental sectors, but collaborative processes must also
prepare involved actors to effectively integrate and utilize expert and local knowledge, adjust to changing
conditions, and navigate complex problems. Adaptive governance can be viewed as a lens for integrating
perspectives across institutions at multiple organizational levels. It is thought to influence the way social-
ecological systems accomplish resilience and can provide the mechanisms that planners seek to “connect
knowledge with action” in collaborative decision-making processes (Wyborn, 2015, p.3). This thesis
focuses specifically on how collaboration is undertaken in adaptive governance processes to strengthen
social-ecological resilience by examining The Soul of Nørrebro case study.
17
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical contribution of this chapter first explains how elements within resilience thinking, systems
thinking, and urban sustainable transitions intersect with adaptive governance. Next, it presents
collaborative decision-making as a key aspect to transition to long-lasting and resilient social-ecological
systems. Finally, the chapter highlights six prominent characteristics and emerging challenges in
collaborative decision-making that can help urban planners and designers build social-ecological resilience
through green and blue infrastructure projects.
3.1 Applying resilience thinking and new modes of governance The term resilience can be ambiguous and interpreted in different ways depending on the context. From
an ecological standpoint, resilience has been explained as “a measure of the persistence of systems and
of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between
populations or state variables” (Holling, 1973, p.14). Keck and Sakdapolrak (2013, p.8) explain that social
resilience can refer to “individuals, organizations or communities—and their abilities or capacities to
tolerate, absorb, cope with and adjust to environmental and social threats of various kinds.” When talking
about engineering, resilience is “the intrinsic ability of an organization (system) to maintain or regain a
dynamically stable state” (Hollnagel, Woods and Leveson, 2006). Resilience involves general concepts,
and the various ways of defining resilience can make it difficult for planners to adopt definitive elements
in the urban context. While it may be challenging to explicitly operationalize, resilience thinking is
important when thinking about who is governing transitions of social-ecological systems as well as whose
sustainability gets prioritized (Smith and Stirling, 2008).
When resilience thinking is applied to cities, as exemplified in The Soul of Nørrebro case study, planners
aim to reduce vulnerability from climate change impacts. Climate change during an era of rapid
urbanization threatens ecological, social, cultural, and economic systems alike, so achieving urban
resilience must build stability by balancing multiple interests. Cities’ increased vulnerability to climate
change is forcing planners to rethink land uses, spatial form, development of buildings, infrastructure
availability, and specific topography (Albers and Deppisch 2013); thus, a holistic perspective of social-
ecological systems must be used. In this thesis, the Municipality of Copenhagen is implementing a multi-
functional green and blue infrastructure project that aims to use a green, public park as a way of building
resilience against cloudburst events and everyday rain while maintaining a variety of possibilities for park
users to socially and culturally interact. The project hopes to increase urban resilience by reducing green
space occupants’ exposure to crisis.
Planning to minimize climate change impacts is inherently difficult since it is unknown exactly how and to
what extent climate change will affect urban spaces, but resilience thinking is thought to introduce
complexity as a way of making “visible synergies and ‘win–win’ situations within planning” (Erixon,
Borgström and Andersson, 2013, p.349). When design solutions consider multiple perspectives, sectors,
and scales, resources can be leveraged to drive innovation and create long-lasting change (Sellberg,
Wilkinson and Peterson, 2015). Holling (1973) suggests that recognizing human ignorance, accepting that
future events will be unexpected, and emphasizing the importance of heterogeneity are necessary facets
of managing complex systems. Furthermore, resilience thinking research recognizes that diversity—or the
combination of different elements—fundamentally contributes to complexity, as it helps build capacity
for a system to anticipate, absorb, and recover from unexpected disruptions (Albers and Deppisch, 2013;
18
Folke, Colding and Berkes, 2002; Folke et al., 2002). These elements of resilience thinking challenge
planners to use complexity as a tool to enrich and proliferate the dynamic interactions that occur in urban
systems.
Resilience thinking uses systems concepts to understand complex, adaptive problems in a new way (Biggs,
Schlüter and Schoon, 2015). Systems thinking is believed to help constructively simplify complexity
through holistic and iterative thinking, which allows decision makers to understand things differently and
more clearly (Gharajedaghi, 2006). A systems thinking approach also allows problem solvers to take a step
back from reductionist tendencies of defining problems in terms of their solutions by primarily and deeply
getting to know how a system functions, who the major actors are, how the actors do what they do, and
the role of the system as a whole. Achieving a shared vision is essential to building social-ecological
resilience since multiple complex systems are involved. As so, systems thinking promotes backcasting—
or designing a solution by working backwards from an inspirational vision of the future—as a planning
tool to reach successful, integrative outcomes. Moreover, systems thinking principles are centered around
co-producing ideas to enable compatible and coherent system solutions, greater community engagement
(as users are more likely to engage with something that they helped design), and opportunity to overcome
path dependency, where historic predispositions create institutionalized resistance to change
(Gharajedaghi, 2006; Blomkvist and Johansson, 2016). Systems thinking can help urban planners organize
thoughts and deepen their understanding of relationships and interdependencies between humans and
their environments (Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon, 2015).
Local resilience is important for social-ecological systems, as site experimentation and knowledge
production by users helps to strengthen the interconnectedness of the natural and social sciences.
However, scholars believe that inconsistency of defining the term resilience and the way in which it has
been mainstreamed in many disciplines leads to ambiguity and over-simplification (Olsson et al., 2015;
Brand and Jax, 2007). Furthermore, the way in which practitioners carry out resilience thinking can be
criticized for holding too much power during the decision making process, as well as for placing too much
responsibility on individuals to be accountable for their own well-being, thus reinforcing decentralized
governance and normalizing neoliberal ideology, or a market-oriented ideology (Baibarac and Petrescu,
2017; Brand and Jax, 2007; Joseph, 2013). A need for institutional support to make a resilience thinking
framework more explicit is recognized (Potter and Vilcan, 2020; Tyler and Moench, 2012), but since
building social-ecological resilience is largely context-based and situational, an institutionalized
framework would require broad and replicable applications. This, in a sense, is counterintuitive, because
it tailors the resilience thinking approach to meet societal needs. It would also require certain people to
decide on which aspects should be prioritized when building resilience, which begs the question: whom
is resilience for? (White and O’Hare, 2014; Cretney, 2014). As principles of resilience thinking become
increasingly common tools to plan for climate change adaptation, caution should be taken to ensure the
term resilience is not being used to push political interests and agendas, but to address climate and social
inequities.
Cities are composed of many complex social-technical systems, which “consist of a cluster of aligned
elements, e.g. artefacts, knowledge, user practices and markets, regulation, cultural meaning,
infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks” (Geels, 2005, p. 446). While these systems
present great opportunities for building global pathways towards sustainability, regeneration, and
resilience, it is unclear how impactful urban transition can emerge, especially with time pressures for
effective action (Wolfram, Borgström and Farrelly, 2019). Geels (2005) claims that transitions occur
19
through the alignment of multi-scale dynamics and through the interaction of social groups with different
interests, strategies, and values. Studies show that holistic thinking, transdisciplinarity, embracing
uncertainty, and long-term foresight are key elements that must be adopted to accomplish large-scale
sustainable transitions (Wolfram, Borgström and Farrelly, 2019; Folke, Colding and Berkes, 2002). Other
studies suggest increased trends towards decentralizing and reinventing policy to better facilitate
interests from the perspective of the public (Steel and Weber, 2001). Furthermore, greater ecological
considerations must take place when considering social-technical systems. If scientific and academic
research can be better understood by civic society, then increased environmental consciousness can help
influence the planning of more sustainable cities. Rethinking urban social-technical systems to prioritize
localized decision-making and community development can perhaps influence the development of new
governance concepts, visions, and guiding principles (Geels and Kemp, 2007).
Urban sustainability transitions attempt to catalyze resilience and systems thinking, but the way in which
society manages transition processes must challenge conventional governance. While many cities have
good intentions for addressing society’s most pressing, complex challenges, there seems to be a disparity
between intention and impact. For example, urban planners use densification processes to counteract
negative effects of urban sprawl, but public green space is often removed in dense urban areas because
of this (Wolsink, 2016; Haaland and van den Bosch, 2015). Current government practices prioritize
economic development over urban green space, creating disaffection towards the environment that is
associated with higher stress, decreased air quality, diminished aesthetic value, and inadequate public
spaces to socialize, mingle, and express creativity (Soga and Gaston, 2016; Ward Thompson et al., 2016;
Panagopoulos, González Duque and Dan, 2016). This is to say that conventional governing structures have
lacked proper recommendations for the integration of urbanization and urban green space conservation.
Institutional arrangements of planning that approach social-ecological systems by embracing elements of
resilience thinking, systems thinking, and urban sustainability transitions are needed (i.e., complexity,
uncertainty, diversity, holistic perspectives, iteration, co-produced knowledge, community engagement,
etc.).
Studies show that current institutional regulatory norms and top-down, neoliberal agendas contribute to
the conventional government challenges that prevent progressive initiatives from taking place (Lawrence
et al., 2013; Theodore, Peck and Brenner, 2013). Modern-day globalized markets and enhanced
privatization of city spaces and services have created complex network dynamics that rely on the
“capitalist imperative of profit making,” producing a mentality that proliferates large-scale production,
systemic social disempowerment, and detrimental effects on the environment (Brenner, Marcuse and
Mayer, 2009, p.176). Whitehead (2013, p.1348) claims, “urbanization is an expression of intersecting
regimes of social power.” Thus, this neoliberal agenda reinforces government and policy making that
corresponds to profit-making and hyper-individualistic approaches rather than social and environmental
needs, where action on climate change is, in fact, directly related to markets, finance, civic engagement,
and governance.
In this study, ‘governance’ refers to the way in which humans organize processes, institutional
arrangements, and decisions. There are many different terminologies and discourses surrounding
governance, especially in recent years as cities try to find the most effective way of managing climate
adaptation. Governance often implies that non-governmental and non-state actors participate in shaping
policy, but how and the extent to which this occurs can greatly vary (Kleinschmit, Böcher and Giessen,
2009). For example, ‘transition governance’ focuses on altering regimes by shifting roles and power
20
relations, as well as by continuously articulating, integrating, and searching for new knowledge, visions,
and debates (Wittmayer et al., 2017; Smith, Stirling and Berkhout, 2005), whereas ‘climate governance’
and ‘environmental governance’ focus on engaging local actors in collaboration with higher tier
government, mobilizing city networks, and including knowledge outside of modern science (Van der
Heijden et al., 2018; Wolfram, 2018; Gulsrud, Hertzog and Shears, 2018).
As previously discussed, adaptive governance has emerged as a way of dealing with the inherent
uncertainty and unpredictability of complex social-ecological systems to achieve resilience. The way in
which society reorganizes after abrupt change, turbulence, or crisis—such as an extreme flooding event,
or cloudburst—can vastly shape how just and sustainable social-ecological systems will be moving
forward. Implementing new plans and policies with intention of increasing adaptive capacity of involved
actors is an important part of adaptive governance, as it will help them to be “able to reconfigure
themselves when subject to change without significant declines in crucial functions of the social-ecological
system” (Folke et al., 2005, p.452). According to Folke, Colding and Berkes (2002, p.354-355), adaptive
capacity entails: 1) learning to live with change and uncertainty; 2) nurturing diversity and social-ecological
memory for reorganization and renewal; 3) combining different types of knowledge for learning
(experiential-, experimental-, process-, structural-, functional-); and 4) creating opportunity for self-
organization and flexible problem solving across scales. Resilience is key for enhancing adaptive capacity,
but to build resilience for social-ecological systems, Folke et al. (2002, p.8) explain that “we need first to
clarify the human-nature relation, and identify what to sustain and why.” Thus, planning and management
of projects that involve climate change solutions in public space require the incorporation of local users’
and interests groups’ knowledge and wisdom to gain a better understanding of what people need from
the system and how they desire to interact with the physical space. Folke et al. (2002) further elaborate
that this first-hand knowledge, which is based on experience, creates flexibility in problem solving and
balances power among interest groups. Systems are strengthened from receiving dynamic feedback. Since
this input is continually in flux, managing different perceptions and stress variables creates a loop that
responds to change, rather than an end goal that aims to achieve a stable state. In this way, elements of
resilience thinking (and subsequently systems thinking and urban sustainable transitions) overlaps with
adaptive capacity, “which includes an emphasis on feedback loops rather than linear causality” (Krasny
and Tidball, 2009, p.469).
3.2 Collaborative decision-making There are synergies of collaboration across governance and planning. Adaptive governance adopts a
collaborative way of decision making, as broad stakeholder engagement and resident- and community-
based participation and are emphasized as essential components (Folke et al., 2005). The Resilience
Alliance—a research organization that focuses on resilience in social-ecological systems—also realizes a
need for collaboration and more diverse stakeholder involvement to arrive at comprehensive overviews
and to re-emphasize an integrated perspective (Sellberg, Wilkinson and Peterson, 2015). Similarly, White
and O’Hare (2014, p.941) say, “The need for partnerships, collaboration, and a shared interpretation is
viewed as essential to achieving resilience.” Whereas collaborative decision-making in adaptive
governance is based upon the collaborative elements presented in resilience thinking, the emphasis on
collaborative decision-making in planning practices originates from a need to achieve social justice and
fair representation.
21
Many governmental entities fail to produce the transformative and impactful results they want, as
decision-making power can be limited when knowledge flow operates in one direction. It is argued that
collaborative dialogue is needed as a deliberative governance strategy (Innes and Booher, 2003). An
Abson et al. (2014) study that investigates participatory scenario planning in 23 social-ecological case
studies indicates that planning practices should promote collaborative and participatory methods to
enrich environmental management and long-term thinking of complex systems. The study also
emphasizes that specific considerations of each social-ecological system should be made to create tailored
objectives, build common understanding, and foster learning (Abson et al., 2014). Adaptive governance
processes embrace broad stakeholder engagement to make planning practices more democratic by
creating multi-dimensional information flows. When different viewpoints, concerns, and desires are
discussed, there is a higher likelihood that social learning could encourage participants to develop a
greater understanding and appreciation for opposing views (Stringer et al., 2006).
Additional discourses on broad stakeholder engagement and collaboration in planning processes of social-
ecological systems include: incorporating the role of local academia into decision-making, such as by
strengthening formal and informal interactions; setting time aside to make sense of and apply scientific
knowledge in a pragmatic context; strategic alignment and coordination between public, private, and civic
society actors to increase resourcefulness and share tools and visions; taking the time to help stakeholders
understanding the needs of the system, as well as the cultural and political framing of the system;
consensus building to bring transformation in a networked society; co-management, by establishing
effective and trusted intermediation to help mitigate conflict while empowering the community to share
opposing views; creating new roles and changing up existing actor roles to challenge the persistent nature
of societal problems; flexibility to allow for time- and context-specific needs; stimulating innovation by
proactively engaging youth in planning phases; and establishing the continuity of partnerships to ensure
long-term sustainability (Wolfram, Borgström and Farrelly, 2019; Stringer et al., 2006; Wittmayer et al.,
2017; Geos Institute, 2019; Baibarac and Petrescu, 2017; Innes and Booher, 1999).
Adaptive governance presents a way of achieving social-ecological resilience, urban sustainable
transitions, and nature-based solutions, where collaborative decision-making is a key aspect. This thesis
recognizes that collaborative decision-making has six prominent characteristics and emerging challenges
that can help urban planners and designers support the development of long-term, social-ecological
resilience in green and blue infrastructure projects. These characteristics are outlined below.
3.2.1 Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity is a specific characteristic of collaboration that aims to spark conversations across the
social and natural sciences (Boyd and Juhola, 2014). Lang et al. (2012, p.26) define transdisciplinarity as
“an integrative, method-driven scientific principle aiming at the solution or transition of societal problems
and concurrently of related scientific problems by differentiating and integrating knowledge from various
scientific and societal bodies of knowledge.” Transdisciplinary partnerships not only include people
possessing knowledge from different disciplines (multi-disciplinary) and integrating different types and
degrees of knowledge (interdisciplinary), but transdisciplinary partnerships also aim at creating
knowledge coherence by solving a larger scope of problems presented by all participants, including
experts, academics, civil society, etc. (Pohl, 2005; Lawrence and Després, 2004).
Transdisciplinary practices seek to synthesize knowledge from multiple sources. In planning, involving
citizens to participate in the creation of public spaces is believed to be beneficial in many ways, and there
22
are many community-led GBI and nature-based projects taking place that build on indigenous, local, and
informal knowledge (European Commission, 2015; Brondizio and Tourneau, 2016). Strengthening the
human relationship with nature by rethinking effective stewardship may not only be important to enhance
collectively shared values that are considered necessary to stabilize the rapidly warming climate;
stewardship of earth systems may also help human society prosper (Steffen et al., 2018). Bottom-up GBI
projects that recognize the importance of citizens’ leading decision-making aim to find solutions to
environmental injustices often by putting low-income and historically marginalized communities at the
forefront. These grassroots initiatives can be tailored to the unique features of every community if diverse
perspectives and stakeholders are included. However, transdisciplinarity in community-led projects that
do not have designated roles or leadership could lead to reduced decision-making productivity, political
gridlocks, and people seeking to demonize others rather than finding common ground (Chapin, 2020).
Thus, a mediator may be necessary to help reframe discussions and prevent false dichotomies from
derailing project objectives.
3.2.2 Reflexivity Reflexivity is another specific characteristic of collaboration (Boyd and Juhola, 2014). Reflexivity questions
and contextualizes knowledge and worldviews, thus allowing for critical conversations about balancing
diverse interests and adapting to local conditions (Buizer, Elands and Vierikko, 2016). A reflexive
governance approach could also “include learning from and being aware of failures” (Kabisch et al., 2016,
p.9). In planning, reflexivity is used as a tool for “generating critical knowledge and dialogue that can
synthesize the perspectives of multiple actors in a common understanding, existing structural constraints
and a collective imagination of alternative future possibilities” (Lissandrello and Grin, 2011,
p.223). Together, transdisciplinarity and reflexivity in adaptive governance help create a system that can
survive over a long period of time, as they aim to form self-organizing and self-enforcing processes that
enable actor groups to draw on various knowledge to sustain systems. This, in turn, helps these social
networks manage and maintain systems with a learn by doing approach. Furthermore, when leaders of
social-ecological systems orchestrate networks following a disturbance, social memory is strengthened
and allows decision-makers to link past experiences with present and future evidence-based policies.
3.2.3 Sense of belonging, pride, and ownership Collective effort to transition to more resilient social-ecological systems—especially when promoting
transdisciplinarity and citizen participation—is believed to increase values of urban nature, environmental
stewardship, and civic ecology, which integrate community and ecological values (Krasny and Tidball,
2009). The earlier that citizens are included in placemaking through community-based participation, the
greater chance those citizens will feel a sense of belonging, pride, and ownership of public space (Lepofsky
and Fraser, 2003; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). Additionally, when the youth learns about the
environment alongside adults and other community members, this sense of belongingness, pride, and
agency is thought to be enhanced in all of those who are involved (Krasny and Tidball, 2009). This may, in
turn, improve citizens’ image of public space, thus increasing the probability that the community will want
to take part in sustaining the physical environment by contributing to the management and maintenance
of space (Lynch, 1960). Time invested in environmental restoration, design, and management projects
results in increased social connectedness, as well as greater understandings of the interconnectedness of
humans and nature. There are profound benefits in community involvement in collaborative decision-
making processes, including more care for the natural resources and ecological processes that society
depends on, increased well-being from exposure to nature, and stronger social relations that emerge from
23
working together with neighbors and sharing traditional knowledge and stories. When a variety of
community members engage in local decision-making, conversations lead to concrete, positive behavior
changes, thus increasing sense of belonging, pride, and ownership of public space. This is further thought
to increase democracy (Karvonen and Yocom, 2011), leading to increased freedoms and justice.
3.2.4 Trade-offs While it is important that all participants feel that their opinions are important and valid, decision-making
always results in trade-offs. Top-down governmental control has traditionally been used to create order
and certainty to minimize back-and-forth debates, but this approach has been criticized for stifling local
efforts and lacking feedback loops to respond to unforeseen issues (Kettl, 2002). Bottom-up, or grassroots,
approaches to implementing local planning projects allow for feedback through dialogue between
collaborative partnerships and networks. This on-the-ground, place-based exchange of knowledge,
expectations, and aspirations can also encourage civic engagement that can potentially influence larger
policy and institutional changes (Stringer at al., 2006). However, research points to uncertainty that
bottom-up governance approaches to green and blue infrastructure implementation is more effective
than hierarchical processes, since bottom-up processes raise questions of legitimacy, accountability, and
capacity, and they operate under the assumption that “community” as a coherent unit works towards the
same goals to fulfill the same needs and interests (Fung, 2003; Conrad and Hilchey, 2010; Cooke and
Kothari, 2001).
Scholars and practitioners believe that institutional guidance is critical for mobilizing unifying support and
building mutual trust, respect, and a sense of solidarity among actors (Folke et al., 2005; Ramboll, 2016a).
Continuous, clear, and organized leadership can help avoid ad hoc and impulsive decision-making and
integrate and communicate understanding among decision-makers (Olsson et al., 2006). According to
Somarakis, Stagakis and Chrysoulakis (2019, p.159), the adaptive governance model “intends to go beyond
the opposition between top-down and bottom-up approaches and avoid being insensitive to either local
constraints, or to the existence of larger issues related to a particular local situation.” Adaptive governance
also takes multiple aspects of scale into account: spatial, temporal, jurisdictional, institutional, and
management considerations are made throughout systems planning (Somarakis, Stagakis and
Chrysoulakis, 2019). Thus, the polycentric arrangement—which has shared authority—aims at finding a
balance between decentralized and centralized decision-making so that resilience projects can reconcile
trade-offs by leveraging culturally embedded knowledge through negotiation, openness, and flexibility.
Projects that build social-ecological resilience must be implemented inclusively within a local context, and
through shared authority, the long-term management and maintenance of the project can be optimized
(Imperial, 1999).
It can be difficult to reconcile different perspectives and manage conflict, so it is important that polycentric
governance processes include a distinct way of reconciling trade-offs to ensure a shared vision and
direction is achieved in a reasonable timeframe. Research on public participation, multi-source feedback,
and collaboration within people-centered planning shows that open-mindedness heightens the quality of
participation and is essential to foster social learning, prevent defensiveness, and practice cultural
sensitivity (Schusler, Decker and Peffer, 2003; Taylor and Bright, 2011; Callicott, 2003). Open-mindedness
and respectful listening can also prevent distortion and domination of ideas while exploring complex and
challenging issues with sensitivity and humor (Schusler, Decker and Peffer, 2003). Different actors are
expected to have different opinions and desires, likely raising tensions, so the way in which collaborative
24
decision-making processes reconcile trade-offs is important for incorporating multiple perspectives into
plans while still accomplishing a unified result.
3.2.5 Representativeness Reconciling trade-offs is important to reach consensus among diverse perspectives, but collaborative
decision-making processes face challenges of representativeness. When building social-ecological
resilience with emphasis on community-based participation, planning entities must critically question who
is benefiting and who has the ability to influence change. Often, citizens who are most active in public
planning meetings are males who are older, whiter, and wealthier than their neighbors (Einstein, Palmer
and Glick, 2018; NCDD, 2013). This creates injustice that is “rooted in social patterns of representation,
interpretation, and communication” (Fraser, 1997, p.14). It is also common that individuals with high
socioeconomic status and an existing knowledgebase on local systems express interest in becoming
involved in the planning process. Furthermore, citizen participation is often based on volunteer
engagement and self-organization, making it much easier for individuals who have the time privilege to
partake. These factors can cause one-sided decisions to be made, thus reinforcing the marginalization of
people whose voices are rarely heard (Stringer at al., 2006). Here, considerations of procedural justice
become important to enact fair, representative decision-making processes.
Acknowledging procedural justice—in this study, understood as the ability of people affected by decisions
to participate in making them—is an essential part of making environmental considerations in decision-
making processes (Ottinger, 2013). Walker (2009, p.627) in Agyeman et al. (2016) explains that procedural
justice allows for “a fluidity of movement of people, ideas and perspectives across the boundaries of
institutions and between differentiated elite and lay spaces, creating open rather than constrained
networks of interaction and deliberation.” This becomes particularly important when cities create climate
change mitigation and adaptation plans, because vulnerable populations (low-income, people of color,
women, the elderly) have the most difficult time preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the
damaging effects of environmental hazards (Clar, 2019). These communities are disproportionately
affected by climate change impacts and often bear the brunt of polluted air and water, poorly maintained
infrastructure, and the lack of accessible green space, public amenities, and affordable housing in many
urban areas.
3.2.6 Distribution of power While collaborative processes aim for shared decision-making authority, they often face challenges of fair
distribution of power. When multiple stakeholders participate in planning, power and agency dynamics
should be carefully approached to challenge the power holder status quo and to avoid feelings of
alienation and distrust (Arnstein, 1969). These challenges are believed to be addressed by seeking out and
prioritizing input and feedback from participants who are directly affected by the system or who are
clearly not represented during decision-making, as well as by creating a two-way flow of information by
educating participants to ensure the knowledge about the system is understood (Reed et al., 2013).
Proactively making efforts to educate and empower all community members to take part in shaping the
places in which they occupy can help improve representativeness and fair distribution of power, which
are essential for increasing the quality of participation, ensuring transparency, and reducing social
inequalities in collaborative decision-making. Furthermore, recognition of differences between groups
and cultures is critical when planning community projects, as different ways of living may mean that
people’s perception of ‘good environmental design’ differs among individuals and various communities.
25
When Persson, Harnesk, and Islar (2017) discussed ‘justice as recognition’ in relation to ecosystem
support, they examined the relations of power between many different social actors (indigenous people,
government, companies, media, etc.) and found that some stakeholders hold ‘power over,’ ‘more power,’
and ‘different power’ from other stakeholders—often leading to the neglect of cultural or socioeconomic
perspectives. One community group may be thrilled at the prospects that a park design project may bring
to the neighborhood. For some, there are only positive outcomes of environmental improvement
projects; however, if other community groups are left out of the decision-making process, concerns for
gentrification, or the displacement of marginalized residents caused by increasing property values due to
increased green space, may go unheard (BCNUEJ, 2017). Challenging the way justice is understood and
represented in governance and social-ecological resilience discourses can lead to a more equal
representation of power and fairness; this must be accomplished by thinking pluralistically and
continuously challenging perspectives of justice and power.
Table 1 on the next page summarizes the six prominent characteristics of collaborative decision-making
that this thesis uses as a lens to analyze The Soul of Nørrebro case study.
This theoretical framework provides the basis for the aim of this thesis which is to investigate how
collaborative decision-making supports the development of long-term, social-ecological resilience in
green and blue infrastructure projects. To gain insight into stakeholder perceptions of collaborative
decision-making, this research investigated two questions:
1) Who is involved in decision-making when planning and designing The Soul of Nørrebro GBI
project?
2) How do stakeholders envision, implement, and contest collaborative decision-making in The
Soul of Nørrebro GBI project?
The following chapter explains the methods used to analyze stakeholder perceptions of The Soul of
Nørrebro green and blue infrastructure project in Copenhagen, Denmark to reveal how adaptive
governance influences the implementation of nature-based projects and how this informs social-
ecological resilience.
26
Table 1: summary of six prominent characteristics of collaborative decision-making.
Characteristic Description
Transdisciplinarity − Aims at creating knowledge coherence by synthesizing perspectives from multiple sources (experts, academics, civil society, etc.)
− Builds on indigenous, local, and informal knowledge
− Strengthens the human relationship with nature
− Puts low-income and minority communities at the forefront
Reflexivity − Questions and contextualizes knowledge and worldviews
− Balances diverse interests and adapts to local conditions
− Includes learning from and being aware of failures
− Helps create a system that can survive over a long period of time through dialogue and a learn by doing approach
Sense of belonging, pride, and ownership
− Early citizen engagement is key
− Emphasizes that urban nature, environmental stewardship, and civic ecology integrate community and ecological values
− Helps sustain the physical environment by contributing to citizens’ desire to manage and maintain space
− Increases social connectedness and democracy
Trade-offs − Institutional guidance and leadership helps build mutual trust and respect
− Polycentricity, which promotes shared authority, finds balance between decentralized and centralized decision-making
− Negotiation, openness, and flexibility helps reconcile trade-offs
− Open-mindedness is essential to foster social learning, prevent defensiveness, and promote cultural sensitivity
Representativeness − Citizen participants often include males who are older, whiter, and wealthier than their neighbors, as well as individuals with high socioeconomic status and an existing knowledgebase on local systems
− Underrepresentation reinforces the marginalization of people whose voices are rarely heard
− Vulnerable populations have the most difficult time preparing for, responding to, and recovering from environmental hazards
− Considerations of procedural justice become important to enact fair and representative decision-making processes
Distribution of power − Some stakeholders hold ‘power over,’ ‘more power,’ and ‘different power’ from other stakeholders
− Recognition of differences between groups and cultures as well as pluralistic thinking is critical when planning community projects
− Prioritizing feedback from participants who are directly affected by the system or who are not represented helps power sharing
− Educating participants to ensure the knowledge about the system is understood is essential for increasing the quality of participation, transparency, and reducing social inequalities
27
4. METHODOLOGY
The notion of investigating how facts and knowledge exist in lived realities is studied in ontological theory.
Epistemology can help you discover the ways that lead you to believe or justify something, where the
questioning of reality can provide insight into what you know and how you know it (Goldman and
Whitcomb, 2011). In the field of sustainable urban planning and design, society’s realities are oriented in
a world where problems are ‘wicked’ and complex; multiple realities are always changing, and discovering
the core problem requires a lot of reflection since it can be addressed in many ways (Rittel and Webber,
1973; Mol, 1999). In fact, devising ‘solutions’ can cause additional problems, and since urban planners
aim to accommodate society in the fairest way possible, they must recognize the different biases,
knowledge, and beliefs that are integrated in the practice of research. The idea that reality is multiple,
open, and contested suggests that people should constantly question how knowledge or reality is created,
discovered, or viewed, as realities can co-exist (Mol, 1999). Thus, ontological and epistemic knowledge
can be used in research to produce reliability and validity through consideration of various possibilities,
where theories, methods, and contexts contribute to transdisciplinarity when approaching sustainability
challenges more holistically (Olsson and Jerneck, 2018).
Social science research is often empirically oriented, or as Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009, p. 3) explain, it
is “research in which ‘pure data’ or uninterpreted ‘facts’ are the solid bedrock of [a study].” Empirical
research must be strictly drawn by empirical evidence, which should be gathered using methods that are
based on the researcher’s direct experience and observation (SDU and KU, n.d.). In this study, empirical
evidence is gathered through conducting desk study and interviews. Empirical research is well suited for
studies that seek deep, contextual data to investigate the nature of existing conditions; however, since
empirical data is context-specific, the generalizable findings of empirical research should not be regarded
as conclusive or exhaustive (Barnes et al., 1994-2020). When generalizable findings are transferred to
other studies, scope and variance should be considered to avoid misrepresentation (ibid.). Additionally, a
researcher’s interpretation of factual phenomena is always based on perceived theory and should be
approached with critical reflection and awareness (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). Being critical can help
question the assumptions that are made about individual realities, which are not consistent, coherent, or
definite (Law, 2007).
Qualitative methodology is often used in the social sciences to gain a deeper understanding of “a complex
reality and the meaning of actions in a given context” (Queirós, Faria and Almeida, 2017, p.369). The
chosen research strategy for this study uses a combination of qualitative research methods to examine
objective reality (social facts), including desk study and interviews. Desk study through document review
is considered secondary data, where existing theories and ideas were systematically collected by other
researchers through document review (Smith, 2008). Data gathered from interviews is considered primary
data, which is collected in the specific context of The Soul of Nørrebro case study in Copenhagen. In this
study, the collection of both primary and secondary data through multiple methods is complementary
and helps understand a context-specific setting, which maximizes the basis for sound generalizations and
reduces subjectivity (Smith, 2008). Further reasoning behind conducting these two qualitative research
methods have been influenced by previous research that use similar methods; “case study research tends
to rely on multiple data collection techniques, including interviews, personal observations, and archival
research” (Sáez, 2013, p.10). Similarly, research that investigates social-ecological systems commonly use
28
interviews and literature review as methods for data collection on place-based studies (De Vos, Biggs and
Preiser, 2019).
4.1 Research design A case study approach to this thesis allows for the exploration of how adaptive governance informs the
implementation of green and blue infrastructure projects by using multiple methods of data collection.
Desk study and semi-structured interviews with individuals from seven stakeholder groups working on
The Soul of Nørrebro GBI project give specific contextual insights on the relationship dynamics,
accomplishments, and implications of using an approach to governance based on collaboration and co-
design. This exploratory case study allows for the comprehensive analysis of how stakeholders envision,
implement, and contest collaborative decision-making. Within case study research, it is assumed that data
collection will occur in multiple and various ways, which presents a great opportunity to gain a holistic
understanding of the study. This comes with the risk that the researcher will deal with an overwhelming
and staggering amount of data that is difficult and complex to manage and analyze. Yet, when a wide
variety of perspectives are considered, creative and novel insights may emerge (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The first method used to collect data in this research is desk study, where project-specific documents
were reviewed to gain a broad understanding of how the cloudburst vision in the project was thought
about and presented in the Nordic Built Cities Challenge, as well as to deeply understand more detailed
aspects that explained which stakeholder groups are involved, how rainwater would be handled, and what
outcomes the project aimed to produce. Advantages of desk study include its low cost and ability to
perform data collection anywhere there is internet access. However, desk study demands an extensive
amount of time, and in this study, several of the documents were in Danish and had to first be translated
to be interpreted, further contributing to the time-consuming process. Thus, it is important that the
researcher skillfully leverages resources and research techniques to perform a meaningful search for
information. Creating an effective and organized system for document management can also help speed-
up the workflow, keep track of critical information, and improve accuracy when referring to and accessing
information.
A wide range of sources were used to conduct a desk study. Publicly available information from websites,
social media-based community groups, reports, and government published data was largely examined.
Private documents specific to the case study were also explored, courtesy of the Municipality of
Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen. These include a project timetable, organizational chart,
internal communication, contracts, blueprints, maps, a district atlas, applications for permits, design
proposals, news articles, and other documents (accessed through a shared Dropbox folder) that were
used in a Theories and Methods of Landscape Architecture course that one of the interview participants
taught, where students dove deep into The Soul of Nørrebro project. The process of searching for relevant
information was approached by exploring a combination of key words and emailing stakeholders for
access to relevant documents. Upon exploration of the documents, a critical eye was used to identify key
points of alignment and inconsistencies to try to aggregate facts and reasoning. Document review in desk
study is iterative, so material was reexamined as new information unfolded and new perspectives were
revealed (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The second method used in this study is interviews, which are the most common type of data collection
in qualitative research (Kitchin and Tate, 2000; Creswell and Poth, 2018). In this study, eight individual
stakeholders were asked questions to give insight into how the values, beliefs, and assumptions about
29
collaborative decision-making are communicated among actors in The Soul of Nørrebro project. A semi-
structured interview is one where the researcher and interview participant engage in a formal interview,
guided by a set of questions and topics that are prepared ahead of time. While these questions are usually
presented in a specific order, they are open-ended, and the researcher can deviate from the guide to
allow the conversation to naturally unfold. This flexibility allows for the use of carefully chosen words to
ensure valid and reliable data are obtained from interviewees while also allowing for the opportunity to
expand on questions, ask for clarifications, and challenge potential assumptions (Louise Barriball and
While, 1994).
The semi-structured interview method is often questioned for its credibility, validity, and reliability, but
careful measures are taken to minimize these concerns (Udo, 2006). In this study, for example, one
interview participant made the statement that “the utility company has been challenging to work with in
this project.” Instead of jumping to the conclusion that the utility company has not been a supportive
stakeholder in the project, the researcher asked the participant to elaborate on this statement. The
participant then revealed that the utility has actually been very supportive of the project, but they simply
are very busy, and the nature of their work is time consuming, so it’s challenging to collaborate with them
to align the project timeframe. Thus, probing the interviewee for clarification, especially on topics that
may elicit emotions or deeper feelings, can be an invaluable tool in semi-structured interviews for
ensuring reliability, as it allows the interviewee to recall and retrieve information from memory and can
help establish as sense of rapport between the researcher and interviewee (Louise Barriball and While,
1994). Adjusting interview questions to sufficiently obtain complete data that captures individual
participant knowledge is also important, and an additional benefit of the flexible nature of semi-
structured interviews (Cohen and Crabtree, 2006; Galletta, 2013).
Interview participants include a variety of stakeholders involved in The Soul of Nørrebro project (see Table
2 below); several are experts who are well-informed about the city’s climate change adaptation intentions
and implementation processes, and several are ordinary community members who work in the same
sphere but offer different perspectives. Initial contact to the interviewees was made via email, and
according to Louise Barriball and While (1994) data validity and reliability can be improved simply by
approaching participants in a friendly manner. Thus, a thoughtful introduction was made to give insight
into the researcher and the project intentions. Face-to-face interviews, which were originally intended in
this study, focus on “emerging languages and the meanings individuals assign to experience…[including]
emotions, motivations, symbols and their meanings, empathy, and other subjective aspects associated
with naturally evolving lives” (Berg 2001, p.10-11). This would help build researcher-interviewee rapport
and capture situational and cultural aspects of the project planning process. Unfortunately, due to COVID-
19 restrictions, the interviews had to be conducted online, which is discussed in the scope and limitations
section below.
30
Table 2: overview of interview participants and their respective roles and responsibilities.
Interview participant Interview date Stakeholder group Responsibility
Tine Langsted Krogstrup
23 March 2020
Project Manager SLA Landscape Architecture Design Firm
Project planning and design
Ruben Filskov
25 March 2020 (joint interview)
Project Manager Municipality of Copenhagen
Project economy, time plan, and bringing people together
Michael Fabritius Tengnagel
25 March 2020 (joint interview)
Supporting Project Manager Municipality of Copenhagen
Technical components
Svava Riesto
8 April 2020
Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning University of Copenhagen
Researcher in humanities; interested in the values that drive urban development Followed the park’s development as the teacher in two university courses, where students have closely studied the case
Thomas Kruse
15 April 2020
Project Manager, Department of Climate Adaptation and Planning Rambøll
Hydraulic conditions, including environmental calculations that secure the area for 100-year rains
Anders Jørn Jensen
16 April 2020
Center Manager MiljøPunkt Nørrebro
Local driver and activist for environmental projects Participant as a local resident in community meetings Elected board official for HOFOR utility company
Tommy Jensen
23 April 2020
Resident of Nørrebro Employee at Det frie Gymnasium
Participant in Urban Renewal initiative and the community focus group (hurtiggruppen)
Mette Prag
18 May 2020
Project Manager Urban Renewal Nørrebro
Nørrebro’s social renewal initiatives
MiljøPunkt
Nørrebro
Hurtiggruppen
31
The interviews were strategically scheduled to interview the two largest stakeholder groups in the
beginning (SLA and the Municipality of Copenhagen), since they were most likely to provide the most
holistic overview of the collaborative governance tactics used in the project. Additionally, since these
participants had the most interaction with stakeholders, they could also provide the researcher with
recommendations on additional people involved in the project that might be interesting to talk to. Based
on the key concepts and recurring themes found in the academic literature review, a list of research
questions was developed to create a narrowed focus during the discussions. They were then placed in a
specific order, where certain questions were marked as critical, and others were marked as optional. A
complete list of interview questions can be found in Appendix A. Each online interview lasted between 40
minutes and one hour, and the audio was recorded on a phone. During the interview, a few hand-written
notes were taken to emphasize certain aspects, and thorough, typed-up notes were taken immediately
after each interview. The transcriptions followed a bullet-point format consisting of summary discussion
points and direct quotes. Listening back to the interview audio recording to transcribe the conversation
helped provide insight into nuances that were missed during the interview. Finally, slight adjustments to
the interview questions were made in consideration for the next interview.
4.2 Data analysis The use of several methods is preferred in qualitative research so that “the biases of any one method
might be canceled out by those of others” (Seale, 1999, p.473). A multi-method research strategy also
allows for triangulation in data analysis, and many researchers believe that triangulation can be used as a
strategy to improve the evaluation of findings (Bashir, Afzal and Azeem, 2008; Seale, 1999). Through
triangulation, this inductive study performs a thematic analysis to identify key characteristics that
emerged from the desk study and semi-structured interview empirical findings. To develop themes that
demonstrate how different datasets come together, recurring concepts were briefly summarized and
highlighted to emphasize their importance both in desk study and in interview transcriptions. Topics that
stood out as different or unexpected were also observed. These findings from each interview and desk
study were compared in order to draw the analysis and conclusions. In this study, careful consideration
was given to ensure the data collected from each method was not treated independently or separately so
that the findings cover and understand the overall case, not the various parts of the case (Baxter and Jack,
2008). To gain additional trustworthiness in the study, the analysis was shared with several interview
participants to allow for further clarification and interpretation, as well as the opportunity to add new
perspectives.
4.3 Scope and limitations The Soul of Nørrebro at Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade is being implemented at the neighborhood level.
Before making generalized conclusions about implementing blue and green infrastructure projects, it
should be noted that GBI projects in different contexts and scales can present a different array of findings,
interactions, and challenges. Since site-specific knowledge and local characteristics are identified as an
essential part of successfully taking a more collaborative approach to governance in this project, the
analysis and interpretation drawn from this case study may not be applicable or relevant in the same way
to other GBI projects used to achieve improved social-ecological resilience. Hence, a limitation of using a
case study is that it could be difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship to arrive at generalizable
conclusions, especially when a single case is being studied, as results will vary in different geographies
(Queirós, Faria and Almeida, 2017). For example, Copenhagen is characterized as a city with historically
rooted democratic opportunity, and the Nørrebro neighborhood is known for its ethnic and cultural
32
diversity. These aspects could have potentially influenced the way that community leadership emerged in
this specific project. The Soul of Nørrebro is an ongoing project, so this study reports a work in progress.
The findings from the case study continue to evolve and emerge, and they will do so for multiple decades.
Findings in this study are based on input from eight stakeholder interviews, which were limited in part by
participants’ willingness to partake in this study. All stakeholders in the project were not interviewed in
this study due to availability of both the researcher and the stakeholders for various, uncontrollable
factors (limited window to conduct the research, stakeholders on maternity leave or on extended
vacation, stakeholders being too busy, etc.). As fair representation of the community group in the project
has been identified as a project weakness, it would have been particularly valuable to have interviewed
an underrepresented community member. However, getting in touch with a person from this group
proved not possible. Interview participants could solely share information based on their individual
experiences, and they faced the challenge of summarizing years of project involvement and experiences
during a single interview. This can hinder the validity of the findings and analysis, since there is a possibility
that important perspectives were excluded from the study or simply forgotten. Furthermore, Diefenbach
(2008) explains that semi-structured interviews can lack reliability since interviewees could be influenced
by the interview situation and are thereby not a reliable source for information because of unconscious
bias. Researcher interpretation of what has been said, along with the writing-up of the findings have also
been criticized for ambiguity (Diefenbach, 2008). When conducting desk study and interviews, it is
important to keep in mind that data can be taken out of context, outdated, or built upon insufficient or
incomplete theoretical concepts. This was addressed in this study by being reflective and critical of the
findings.
This study originally intended to use direct observation through site visit as a third qualitative research
method. Making observations and taking field notes on how Nørrebro inhabitants interact with the space
would provide first-hand insights into social interactions that may have informed aspects of community
engagement that were left out of desk study and interview findings. However, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Denmark made a 13 March 2020 announcement that Denmark’s borders will be closed for a
minimum of one month (until 13 April) to all non-citizens to prevent the possible spread of COVID-19.
Border closure was later extended through June (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2020). As so, the
site visit in Copenhagen, which was planned for the end of March, was postponed and later canceled given
world-wide concern for the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, since Danish Prime Minister Mette
Frederiksen recommended that all non-critical public sector and private sector employees work from
home, all in-person semi-structured interviews had to be completed online through Microsoft Teams,
Skype, Zoom, and Google video software.
There are several limitations of online interviews, which are not preferred over meeting face-to-face. For
example, interviewees may act differently in front of a computer, it can be more difficult to express
enthusiasm and pick up on body language cues, and it could be challenging for both participants and the
researcher to stay engaged for the full duration of the interview (Bryman, 2008). Thus, asking direct and
brief interview questions becomes very important. Additionally, conducting online interviews increases
risk for technical problems, such as poor connection or quality, which could disrupt the interview flow,
create difficulties hearing what’s been said, or make it challenging to be fully present (ibid). Online
interviews do, however, solve challenges of time and financial constraints that face-to-face interviews
present. Online interviews may also be more flexible and logistically convenient for interviewees to work
into busy schedules (Deakin and Wakefield, 2013). In fact, several interview participants in this study
33
encouraged me to reach out again for a follow-up interview session since setting up online meetings is so
easy, especially given the situation of having to work from home from the COVID-19 restrictions. Similarly,
several interview participants seemed more willing to agree to an interview knowing that it can be
conveniently squeezed into their schedule. Lastly, online interviews could put more shy interviewees at
ease, allowing them to open up and be more comfortable online rather than in a face-to-face scenario
(Bryman, 2008).
4.4 Ethical considerations According to Plemmons and Barker (2016, p.1), “There is an ethical dimension to all professional
relationships,” and researchers have the responsibility to maintain relationships that are respectful,
considerate, supportive, honest, and transparent. Patton (1990, p.372) cited in Pyett (2003, p.1172) claims
that “the human factor is the great strength and the fundamental weakness of qualitative inquiry and
analysis.” Considering all aspects of the human experience in a neutral and impartial manner by
recognizing researcher conscious and unconscious bias, being sensitive to expectations and assumptions,
and acknowledging subjectivity helps ensure data validity (Diefenbach, 2008). Additional efforts to
challenge researcher preconceptions and search for opportunities to explore alternative pathways and
achieve deeper insights were made (Eisenhardt, 1989). Mindful ethical considerations for the study
include a personal examination of the researcher’s own motives and interests, full transparency of
research intentions, and respecting participant privacy by obtaining verbal permission to record the
conversation at the start of each interview, as well as confirming informed consent that the researcher
may use direct participant quotations in this study. In earlier drafts of the study, direct quotes were
crosschecked with each respective interview participant to further ensure accuracy and clarity. In this
study, there are no evident implications for discussing public knowledge, and vulnerable populations were
not engaged in interviews, so a consent form was not used.
34
5. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
This research uses The Soul of Nørrebro as a specific example from Copenhagen to develop a more
thorough understanding of how collaborative decision-making—a key aspect of adaptive governance—
supports the development of long-term, social-ecological resilience in green and blue infrastructure
projects. This chapter presents the various perspectives from stakeholder interviews that describe how
The Soul of Nørrebro case study envisions, implements, and contests this key aspect. The relevant findings
of these perspectives were analyzed based on themes identified through the triangulation of the desk
study and interview data. The themes are discussed in accordance with the findings in the literature on
collaborative decision-making.
5.1 Actors involved in decision-making
5.1.1 Broad stakeholder engagement Adaptive governance involves decision-making by a diverse range of actors, social networks, and private
and public partnerships. It must involve knowledge sharing, learning, and presenting various types of
information. This allows actors in social-ecological systems to build a more holistic understanding of
complex elements. In turn, this enables system flexibility, which is necessary for coping with long-term
disturbances, uncertainty, and the integration of new perspectives. In The Soul of Nørrebro case study,
each key stakeholder group has an important role to play. The Municipality of Copenhagen is responsible
for providing funding for social elements of the project, overseeing the project economy and time plan,
and for coordinating and bringing actors together. HOFOR, the regional utility company, determines
underground technical and engineering solutions for all water-related challenges and provides project
funding for water-related elements. Rambøll performs the cost-benefit analysis and environmental and
engineering calculations for the project while also ensuring hydraulic criteria from HOFOR utility company
and the municipality are secured for 100-year rain events. SLA designs all aspects of the project with a
focus on green space and social cohesion. Local politicians ‘TMU’ approve or disapprove project plans,
and the Municipal legislative authority issues permits. Urban Renewal, the 2013-2019 municipal program
based on co-creation that initially established a bottom-up approach to social renewal in Nørrebro, is the
lead in engaging residents and addressing challenges unique to the area. Lastly, the community focus
group (called ‘hurtiggruppen’ in Danish), formed through an Urban Renewal initiative, contributes by
expressing opinions, concerns, and desires about the plan, especially regarding social dimensions of the
space. Figure 8, below, shows a depiction of when key stakeholders were engaged in the project, as well
as key stages of the project from when the destructive 2011 cloudburst rain occurred through 2024 when
the project is estimated to be completed.
All interview participants agree that setting the project agenda has always been a joint initiative that
requires close collaboration, shared responsibility, and equal decision-making power, particularly
between the municipality, HOFOR utility company, Rambøll, and SLA. The project also depends on
approval from local politicians and the legislative authority of the municipality, and input from the
community focus group is heavily considered and depended upon during the planning and design phases,
as participants give feedback directly to the municipality and SLA. When describing the way in which the
project is led and organized, one interview participant said that in a way, “everyone and no one is in charge
of moving the agenda forward.”
35
Figure 10: stakeholder engagement and project development from 2011 through estimated project end.
2011
Cloudburst rain event resulting in
extreme flooding and infrastructural
damage 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Urban Renewal Nørrebro is formally
established and begins organizing the
community to address concerns
Urban Renewal applies to participate in
the Nordic Built Cities Challenge
Drafting outline proposal; Urban Renewal initiative ends; hydraulic prerequisites (volume requirements) in Hans Tavsens Park drastically change
Local politicians ‘TMU’ review and
either accept or reject project proposal
Project construction
SLA, in collaboration with Rambøll,
wins Nordic Built Cities Challenge with
The Soul of Nørrebro proposal
Initial planning and drafting of an
outline proposal begins (initial design
and engineering phase)
Project proposal is finalized (detailed
design and engineering phase)
Tender process for design and
construction begins
Project completion
MiljøPunkt
Nørrebro
Hurtiggruppen
36
5.1.2 Community involvement Before SLA won the Nordic Built Cities Challenge with their The Soul of Nørrebro project proposal for
cloudburst solutions in 2016, there was an ongoing local strategy from the municipality, called Urban
Renewal (Områdefornyelse), that committed six years to on-the-ground initiatives in neighborhoods that
were socially disadvantage due to low-employment, homelessness, and violence (Københavns Kommune,
2012). Urban Renewal in Nørrebro was formally established in 2013 to address the neighborhood’s social
challenges while tackling cloudburst issues, which “no one knew how to deal with at the time,” according
to interviewee Mette, who led the Urban Renewal initiative. A community focus group called
‘hurtiggruppen’ was organized shortly after to focus on city planning by co-creation to “lift the
neighborhood physically, socially, and culturally” (Københavns Kommune, 2014, p.80). Mette explained
that in 2015, Urban Renewal had the opportunity to get involved with the Nordic Built Cities Challenge.
She explained:
This allowed us to really push the project forward—it gave Urban Renewal the muscles to use
bottom-up dialogue while also working with higher-up management. So Urban Renewal applied
to be the Danish representative in the design challenge, which allowed us locals to partner with
experts to address the long-awaited and strong desire for making improvements in the area.
The Soul of Nørrebro design team aimed to honor Nørrebro’s unique neighborhood characteristics and
prioritize the community perspective from the very beginning, and the two initiatives were able to join
forces in a convergence of social and ecological agendas gathered from local and expert knowledge.
According to interviewees, the community focus group that Urban Renewal formed in 2013—called ‘the
fast group’ when translated from Danish—became an ideal way of engaging with citizens throughout the
project in a way that grounded the radical design elements proposed in the cloudburst project proposal.
The Soul of Nørrebro seemingly created an innovative approach to citizen engagement through the
community focus group. Tine, the lead project manager and designer at SLA, described that it was
composed of about 30 participants, including “school employees, playground staff, doctors, engineers,
environmental advocates, local business owners, parents…” Tine explained that when the municipality
got involved to coordinate the project, they encouraged everyone from the community to join the focus
group to help shape the neighborhood’s new cloudburst project. Prospective participants were, however,
“informed that joining the group would require a certain level of time commitment,” said Tine. According
to the municipality, the focus group has served as a very easy way of quickly rounding up community
members for input. Participants have reportedly proven dedicated to the project throughout the years,
and the municipality can rely on them to respond to emails within a day or so and be called for
spontaneous discussions. “This format of community participation differs from general citizen meetings
which can take months to plan and occur less frequently—usually only when critical stages of the project
have been reached,” said Ruben, lead project manager at the municipality. While general citizen meetings
seek participation through a consultation approach (requesting views on pre-determined issues), focus
group meetings seek participation through an engagement approach, where an open dialog is fostered,
allowing all participants to take part in decision-making after reaching a deeper level of understanding of
dynamic project elements.
37
5.2 Stakeholder visions, implementation, and contestations of collaborative decision-
making
5.2.1 Transdisciplinarity and reflexivity The Soul of Nørrebro stakeholders envision a climate adaptation project based on collaboration and co-
creation to capture the area’s diverse inhabitants. This is accomplished through broad stakeholder
engagement and the creation of the community focus group, which allows for continuous community
communication and a more permanent participatory process (SLA, 2016). The implementation of
collaborative decision-making is facilitated by project managers of the municipality. In their joint
interview, they stated that “there are many different types of key players who bring unique knowledge
and expertise to the table.” When all aspects are discussed as a group, project values can be more fully
understood. This transdisciplinary approach is common in adaptive governance, as it aims at creating
knowledge coherence by solving a larger scope of problems presented by experts and local residents alike
(Pohl, 2005; Lawrence and Després, 2004). Co-designing processes that are initiated by practitioners in
collaboration with local communities are also thought to strengthen urban resilience (Baibarac and
Petrescu, 2017).
Evidence of reflexivity is also seen in The Soul of Nørrebro’s collaborative decision-making process.
Reflexive planning offers “the opportunity to reconsider existing ideas and new possibilities for long-term
results but setting this against a firm understanding of the situational conditions of the present”
(Lissandrello and Grin, 2011, p.245). Reflexivity also questions and contextualizes knowledge and
worldviews, thus allowing for critical conversations about balancing diverse interests and adapting to local
conditions (Buizer, Elands and Vierikko, 2016). According to interviewees, discussions often sought out
dynamic feedback which was primarily achieved through continuous dialogue that required openness and
flexibility among actors, which will be discussed in more detail in section 5.2.3. While interview
participants believe that the project has done a good job of collaborating with a wide range of actors, they
reported that the academic community was not consulted for project feedback. Interviewee Svava,
Associate Professor of Landscape Architecture and Planning at University of Copenhagen, worked with
students to study and reflect on Hans Tavsens Park and the design proposals submitted in the Nordic Built
Cities Challenge to identify, interpret, and analyze cultural and aesthetic landscape-architectural
problems. Svava recognized that “dialogues must be done on many different levels and at many different
stages in the [planning] process to gain insights on the kind of cultural values we carry with us and the
kind of decisions people make in urban development.” Despite her deep knowledge about the
implementation of The Soul of Nørrebro, she was not specifically asked to give input in the project, nor
were her colleagues, to the best of her knowledge.
Social constructivism says that science and technology substantially impact the material and social world
(Sismondo, 2010). The constructivist view states, “Successful science in the public sphere can be the result
of the co-production of science and politics” (Sismondo, 2010, p.70). Thus, both scientific knowledge and
real-world projects can benefit from collaboration. It can also be argued that real-world projects should
consider what is added to academic research, which society deems as formal knowledge, to ensure that
social activities in project plans produce orderly outcomes and thus, minimize uncertainty (Sismondo,
2010). Furthermore, the concept of knowledge spillovers suggests that cities can benefit from
collaboration with nearby universities, as it can stimulate knowledge flows and innovation (Naldi et al.,
2015; Johansson and Quigley, 2003). The Soul of Nørrebro could have potentially benefitted from this
38
knowledge diffusion and information exchange to strengthen stakeholders’ understanding of the type of
values that drive and implicate the sustainable development of social-ecological systems.
Svava also reflected in her interview that “it’s important that all parties are aware that each part of the
project is political.” In her Theories and Methods of Landscape Architecture course where students
explored the Nordic Built Cities Challenge design competition impacts both before and after the
competition was won by SLA, an important learning from students’ work highlighted that the guidelines
of a competition program often contain important decisions that will ultimately shape and impact projects
for years to come. This suggests that The Soul of Nørrebro was influenced by predetermined criteria,
which runs counter to transdisciplinarity and reflexivity and contradicts the design team’s aspirations of
deep engagement and input from community members. Svava continued:
Design competitions can be wonderful for many reasons. They often make designers emphasize
the rhetorical side of design. However, to win the competition, designers often use fantastic
visuals and a fancy title, which can sometimes simplify the discussion and put too much emphasis
on rhetoric rather than content.
The Nordic Built Cities Challenge guidelines aimed at “identify[ing] innovative climate solutions that can
inspire cities on a global scale” (Københavns Kommune, 2016, p.1), and comments from the jury on The
Soul of Nørrebro winning proposal state, “This lofty ambition is the hallmark of the competition, but it is
also its achilles heel in the sense that it makes the task exceedingly challenging” (ibid., p.2). The project
won for its ability to manage cloudbursts in the entire city of Copenhagen and its very innovative and well-
communicated concepts of urban nature.
Several interview participants believe that the far-reaching vision in The Soul of Nørrebro caused several
obstacles—discussed in greater detail below—suggesting that design challenge criteria that emphasized
large-scale innovation prevented the jury from considering that the scale and ambition of the project may
not be well-suited for Nørrebro. “Implementing a project that looks good on paper but does not deliver
has created a strained relationship between the municipality, civil service, and the citizens,” said Anders,
a resident and manager of MiljøPunkt Nørrebro, a local environmental organization. Perhaps the jury
should have looked at the proposal with a more critical lens to consider the context and perspective of
the project’s vision. Or perhaps the team that designed The Soul of Nørrebro proposal should have
foreseen the host of problems that can result from trying something too innovative. However, it may not
be reasonable to assume that design challenge guidelines should address all of the challenges of urban
development. The guidelines, along with the jury and designers, were deliberately trying to find creative
solutions for complex societal problems, and they intended to implement the project in accordance with
context-specific needs. It was not solely about creating an innovative vision; it was also about
collaborating with politicians, stakeholders, and community members to create a path toward building
more resilient environments.
Research shows reflexive planning is challenged by the fact that “complex contemporary problems, which
require novel practices, often do not correspond with [contemporary planning and governance]”
(Lissandrello and Grin, 2011, p.226). Many of the setbacks that The Soul of Nørrebro have encountered—
pushing the project completion year from 2022 to 2024—largely point towards administrative, timeframe,
and funding challenges that are standard to contemporary urban development projects. While the project
takes an adaptive governance approach to implementing a novel idea, it still operates within a
bureaucratic system where certain rigid administrative tasks must be followed. For example, The Soul of
39
Nørrebro proposal was based on Copenhagen’s 2012 Cloudburst Management Plan, but the plan was
redrafted to include updated and more detailed elements of the project, requiring The Soul of Nørrebro
plans to be redrawn to ensure compliance with the new guidelines. According to interviewee Ruben,
“compared to the original plans, new sketches have made for what is now a very different project.” The
change in the redrafted plan, causing the greatest delay, centers around the Hans Tavsens Park hydraulic
modeling prerequisites, where the original plan to accommodate 18,000 m³ of water in the park from
rainfall and road runoff from around the city was changed to 5,000-7,000 m³ of water, completely
reframing the project. According to the municipality, this was due to the development of a better planning
tool (called ‘Master Planning’) which was introduced in Copenhagen in 2019.
The project team has also had difficulties getting approval from local authorities throughout the years—
another setback that is standard in planning practices. “Smaller projects that are agreed upon one day
require entirely new plans, technical understanding, and dialogues the next day,” explained Michael,
technical manager at the municipality. “This greatly prolongs the process and has become quite costly,”
he continued.
Additionally, the team has had issues with permit acquisition and water pumps at Korsgade street. A large
part of The Soul of Nørrebro’s vision was based on the Korsgade street plan to guide excess rainwater
from Hans Tavsens Park downhill into purifying biotrophs and release the cleansed water into Peblinge
Lake—one of three distinctive lakes featured in Copenhagen’s unique topography (SLA, 2016). Once
planning began, however, stakeholders found out that it would not be possible to acquire the necessary
permits to allow this to happen, because the Copenhagen lakes are highly protected by law. Discharging
water into the lakes would require a rigorous cleaning process to remove phosphorus and toxic heavy
metals that some interviewees believe is “absurdly strict.” The legislative authority of the environmental
department of the municipality strongly opposes this essential part of the green cloudburst plan and will
not issue the water discharge permit to the project. This is a contested subject, as stakeholders believe
their plan would ultimately improve the water quality of the lake and add water to the dried lake during
the summer months. However, the municipality must comply by European regulation which has set a
strict standard that requires water to be filtered through advanced mechanical and chemical treatment
plants on every discharge point before entering the lake. This is seemingly unachievable and has created
immense frustration among the project stakeholders, as it is largely unknown how the issue will be solved.
Changing the drainage regime and water quality compliance standards in Copenhagen are large
undertakings for a neighborhood project, and it would require collaboration on a much higher level.
Interviewee Tommy, a resident of Nørrebro and on-site school employee, remains hopeful that the city
and utility company will devise a solution to implement this original feature of the plan, as it would
redefine the use of the street—slowing traffic, introducing nature into the city, and overall creating a more
pleasant experience for residents. However, he has learned that “there are a lot of good ideas in this
project, but with each good reason to implement them, there seems to be ten times more reasons not
to.”
According to Ruben and Michael, the project managers in charge at the municipality, managing the delays
mentioned above “have been ridiculously hard in this particular project,” challenging collaborative efforts.
While the stakeholders involved have reportedly always been very supportive of the project and its goals,
the unexpected additional planning, redrafting of designs, new calculations, and brainstorming of
alternative solutions has seemingly taken a toll on the team’s morale and budget. Interviewees believe
that the best way to manage these conflicts has been through dialogue, but they have stressed the
40
extreme difficulty of this when the project is constantly evolving and changing. Mette from Urban Renewal
seemingly agrees, as she stated, “the cloudburst aspects include so many technical things, and things are
always changing…It is very difficult to communicate to the locals that the huge technical aspects can
change.” It has been four years of planning, and little progress has been made due to administrative,
institutional, and funding barriers—despite the project’s efforts to collaborate with a range of
stakeholders. The setbacks may be particularly discouraging for community members who have been
promised something that cannot be accomplished, as they have dedicated so much spare time to this
project. Interviewees explained that the COVID-19 pandemic has not helped; everyone is working from
home, so it has been even more difficult to move the project along. The project’s struggles demonstrate
that collaboration is pushed to the limits when facing large challenges. They also demonstrate how the
collaborative efforts, comradery, and determination among stakeholders have persevered to embrace
system flexibility and adaptability to their unpredictable encounters.
Many of these setbacks that the project experienced are not uncommon in planning practice; interview
participants acknowledged that there were many good ideas in the original proposal, and that some
roadblocks could not have been foreseen. However, The Soul of Nørrebro also experienced setbacks that
could be attributed to lack of transdisciplinary collaboration. For instance, environmental advocate
Anders identified issues with the original design of the rainwater catchment basin in Hans Tavsens Park
early on. Yet when he voiced his concerns, he was repeatedly told to “go with the process, go with the
flow.” Students who studied the project also quickly realized that the design for the catchment basin could
never work as planned. Furthermore, Anders explained that it was falsely assumed that lake water, which
is filled with phosphorus, could be pumped uphill into the same purifying biotrophs to create a continuous,
self-cleaning water system. While this is a wonderful idea, Anders pointed out that those who are more
experienced in the technical know-how of such a system know that “pumping water uphill is completely
unrealistic and should have never been included in the plan to begin with.” When the design competition
was won, the plan relied on many assumptions that perhaps had not been thoroughly thought through,
later causing frustration, tension, and disappointment among stakeholders. Had people with local
knowledge and technical expertise been consulted during the early drafting of the original proposal, some
issues could have perhaps been avoided. There are always challenges and delays with innovative work,
but several stakeholders who were interviewed expressed disappointment, as certain setbacks could have
been avoided if the right voices were heard earlier on. Transdisciplinary collaboration seeks to prevent
this type of misinformation by creating knowledge coherence.
When discussing this matter with Svava, she reflected on the notion of ‘technological determinism’ in her
interview. Often in the case of large strategic plans that have been politically decided on, the assumption
is made that complex, technical problems (such as a city’s infrastructure not being able to cope with large
amounts of water) must only be solved by complex, technical solutions (such as a huge rainwater
catchment basin). Svava wisely explained, “We tend to narrow, far too much, the scope of possibilities.
And we think too much in sectors, for example, ‘this is a technological problem, so we need technological
solutions.’ But [solutions] should be more connected since urban spaces are so multidimensional.”
Technological determinism, which is the view that technology inevitably changes social relations and
social structure, can create tunnel vision (Haas, 2008; Hornborg, 2011), and it should be challenged by
underlining the fact that “technologies are socially constructed, shaped by people's perceptions and
cultural contexts” (Wong, 2009, p.107). This emphasizes that social-ecological systems must be designed
in a context and scale that aligns with the appropriate characteristics of the local environment. Svava
41
alluded that the proposal is based on a simplistic understanding of drainage as a technical problem to be
solved by engineers. Transdisciplinary approaches would view complex problems more holistically,
seeking the opinions of non-engineers as well (such as Anders, Svava, and the university students who
saw the design differently). Transdisciplinarity involves different perspectives, so contradictions are
inevitable. Yet when tensions are discussed, helpful insights are produced, which in this project could have
reframed some of the failed design elements that were originally planned in the project, saving time,
money, and frustration.
5.2.2 Sense of belonging, pride, and ownership The earlier that citizens are included in placemaking through community-based participation, the greater
chance those citizens will feel a sense of belonging, pride, and ownership of public space (Lepofsky and
Fraser, 2003; Brody, Godschalk and Burby, 2003). One example of this in The Soul of Nørrebro is when the
municipality engaged in dialogue with the on-site school and a need for more teaching space was
identified. Together, the stakeholders found a way to incorporate teaching facilities into dedicated park
space for cloudburst solutions, boosting community ownership of the public space. This innovative
solution allows schoolkids to use the environment as an educational opportunity alongside community
members, which is thought to enhance citizen’s sense of belongingness, pride, and agency (Krasny and
Tidball, 2009).
Community members who feel a sense of belonging in their environment are potentially more likely to
take part in sustaining the physical environment by contributing to the management and maintenance of
space (Lynch, 1960). Interview participant Tine, declared, “If the residents are not onboard, then it’s
impossible to make a long-term project that works well, especially for this community.” Others reported
that “feedback from the community is taken very seriously,” and as a result, “citizens whose ideas are
implemented in plans are very happy and thus have no problem taking on the management and
maintenance responsibilities of the space.” Empirical research on perception and communication of flood-
prone areas shows that “adaptive behavior is more likely when people perceive protection as their
personal responsibility” (Kellens, Terpstra and De Maeyer, 2012, p.25).
Furthermore, interviewee Svava explained the historical meaning of Hans Tavsens Park when it was first
realized: “to many, Hans Tavsens Park symbolizes democracy, freedom of movement, and the liberation
of people in parks.” The park became a symbol of these values, and according to Svava, it also became “a
place in the city that enabled people of the working class to do a lot of things that they couldn’t do
elsewhere in the city, like sunbathing, playing, sports, and so on.” Thus, as Mette stated, “It’s important
the citizens feel that they have good influence in the project.” The Soul of Nørrebro’s approach to citizen
engagement is necessary for providing community members a platform to voice their opinions on what
they think the park design should look like. One example of residents successfully shaping the project is
demonstrated when plans, originally formed in 2015, for Copenhagen’s first ‘FabLab for City Nature’ were
turned down by the community focus group. The proposed FabLab would “increase everyday happiness
in Nørrebro” (SLA, 2016, p.8); Mette elaborated that “it included a big scale urban farming project that
would have also provided the space for residents to network and get more involved.” The FabLab once
had potential for the community, however Mette explained “the strategy has lost momentum and would
need to be boosted again…but the locals didn’t want the FabLab—it was not their dream, and they
couldn’t see it being so great, so they dropped it.” Instead, the community focus group decided a small
urban garden in the playground area would suffice, and that they would rather use the FabLab space
otherwise.
42
As the community focus group has a hand in shaping how the surrounding environment can serve them
best, it can be viewed as a way of enhancing civic ecology, which integrates community and ecological
values (Krasny and Tidball, 2009) and civic environmentalism, which is thought to produce local political
action and increase deliberative democracy (Karvonen and Yocom, 2011). It may be too early in the project
to verify that this is so, and since the collaborative decision-making process has been a bit turbulent,
interviews indicate that the community is not always confident that their input is impactful. Mette
explained, “Urban Renewal has had to convince them or open their eyes to what positive contributions
and ‘wins’ they have brought to the project…The citizens are not planning experts, so they don’t see all
the positive aspects they’ve contributed to.” Since the planning phase has taken a long time and physical
changes have not yet been realized, it is difficult to assess whether long-term sense of belonging, pride,
and ownership has been manifested in the project. However, Mette also reflected:
Residents have shown huge transformation throughout the years. People who once thought the
municipality and planners are not that friendly or too bureaucratic have gotten involved, and they
have been surprised to find they really wanted to give locals a voice, and that they are on the
local’s side—they really listen, care, and try to make right decisions.
In this sense, for some, citizen engagement led to increased positive perceptions of local democratic
processes, which could result in increased feelings of social connectedness.
5.2.3 Trade-offs Interview participant Svava explained that since the 1970s, there have been mandates to require
collaboration to give citizens the option to accept or reject plans. In fact, she said, “citizen collaboration
in Denmark, especially in Copenhagen, is an element that is more comprehensively and more strongly
embedded in the planning regulations than in many other cities abroad.” This works to the project’s
advantage, since scholars and practitioners believe that institutional practice is critical for mobilizing
unifying support and building mutual trust, respect, and a sense of solidarity among actors (Folke et al.,
2005; Ramboll, 2016a). Interviewees reported that even before the project began, the residents of
Nørrebro were very vocal to the municipality about their needs and desires. This could be due to the
formal public participation hearings that are mandatory in planning practices in Copenhagen (Hedensted
Lund et al., 2012). However, formalized, top-down processes have been criticized for stifling local efforts
and lacking feedback loops to respond to unforeseen issues (Kettl, 2002). Another potential drawback to
formalized structures is that relying on routine procedures to engage with the community may speak
much more to certain populations than to others. Furthermore, with formalized processes comes the
impending risk that collaboration initiatives merely act as talking processes that do not have actual impact
on decisions that are made. This can be disappointing to people who have devoted their spare time to
provide input, ultimately damaging the relationship between state and non-state actors.
To balance these consequences, adaptive governance practices incorporate bottom-up initiatives into
decision-making to achieve a polycentric model of leadership, where state and non-state actors share
authority. The Soul of Nørrebro’s innovative approach to citizen engagement can be attributed to
partnering with Urban Renewal in the formation of the community focus group. While Svava explained
that Urban Renewal is, indeed, a formal entity, the initiative is one that strategically works with inclusive,
collaborative processes to identify and empower local grassroots movements to overcome drawbacks of
top-down governance (Københavns Kommune, 2014). The Soul of Nørrebro wisely partnering with Urban
Renewal greatly helped project leaders establish a reliable way to work on-the-ground, demonstrating
43
the benefits of working with community leaders across institutions. One interview participant explained
that moving forward, the municipality may even restructure its departments to house Urban Renewal
under the same branch that the cloudburst secretariat works under, which could further improve
coordination of community-building in future blue and green infrastructure projects. Balancing
decentralized and centralized decision-making through a polycentric arrangement in The Soul of Nørrebro
aims for shared authority so that points of contention can be reconciled in a just way.
Reconciling different perspectives and managing conflicts among stakeholders can be particularly
challenging when trying to achieve a shared vision in a specific timeframe. As previously discussed, some
of the project’s largest challenges center around the sustainable water management of Hans Tavsens Park
and Korsgade street. While conversations in the community focus group usually concern social life in the
park rather than the technical aspects of climate adaptation, the two topics are directly related. The Soul
of Nørrebro plan aims to take away the existing big lawn in Hans Tavsens Park to assist in water drainage
and foster more natural, green elements, as many believe the lawn is an outdated park typology. On one
hand, this is a compelling idea that builds a more productive ecological system, reduces damage from
cloudbursts, and sustainably circulates everyday rain through the city. It can also bring residents closer to
nature, add educational value, and reduce other climate change impacts like drought and extreme heat.
But on the other hand, it reduces the spatial affordances of what social activities can take place in the
park. The plan proposes that the lawn, which is highly valued by residents for its flexible use of space
(regular activities include yoga, music festivals, children playing, students lounging, having a beer, picnics,
etc.), be transformed into a wet, highly sloped terrain where there are simply less possibilities for activities
to take place. While the public park would aid in flood protection, residents are more concerned that the
park will become impractical in their everyday lives, especially as interviewee Svava explained, “Nørrebro
is the most dense part of Denmark in the sense that more people live on each square meter than in other
parts of the country and the city of Copenhagen. So outdoor green space is hard to come by.” There is an
ongoing dialogue to best determine how Hans Tavsens Park will be planned, but trade-offs cannot be
avoided in the end.
While the primary functions of Hans Tavsens Park have yet to be decided on, a different point of
contention that surrounds a football field has been reconciled, as a local football club that emerged as an
unexpected, prominent stakeholder has influenced the plans. Interview participants explained that the
club has been very vocal about wanting a big field with artificial grass to play in. “For locals, the
opportunity to play football all year long is very important—they argue that it is a way of integrating high-
risk, low-income children into the community because football is something that can bring children
together,” explained Mette. While Mette agrees that implementing a plan for inclusive activity is a good
thing, she is “not too fond about the artificial grass they propose,” as it conflicts with the climate adaptive
theme of the project, since utilizing natural vegetation to allow for water infiltration is a huge part of the
project. Furthermore, Mette stated that “there are citizens who do not want the football field because it
takes up too much space of the park.” The municipality and SLA have approached this conflict in several
ways: first by showing the football club what the existing plans look like and explaining why and how the
project came to be the way it is; and second, by having more detailed discussions about how the plan
would change if the field with artificial grass was implemented. Additionally, the municipality has noticed
that certain community members have influence over other community members and have been able to
steer the conversation in various ways. For example, Thomas, the project manager at Rambøll who is
responsible for the hydraulic components of the project, explained that “there is a doctor in the group
44
who is quite fierce and clever, and others in the group really listen to what she has to say.” Yet even when
other residents point out the drawbacks to implementing the football field, such as the inability to manage
water in a sustainable way, the football club remains persistent about their wishes. After years of
discussing the matter, the municipality and SLA realized that flexibility in their plans has always been
desired, so they have thoughtfully taken the football club’s input into consideration and re-drawn their
plans accordingly. This demonstrates the project team’s dedication to respecting resident input and
reflexivity as discussed in section 5.2.1.
The Soul of Nørrebro makes multiple attempts to create synergy between the technical solutions of
alleviating stormwater threats while honoring the neighborhood’s social values, but all interviewees
reported significant difficulties in balancing different interests. Interviewee Thomas explained that it’s
challenging to get the community focus group to understand the rainwater management parts of the
project. He stated, “We have spent the past four years trying to explain it, and I’m not sure they
understand.” Some participants have their mind set on specific elements, focusing on one single tree, for
example. Mette explained that “The best thing to reconcile trade-offs within the group is to let the citizens
find a consensus among themselves…If we are taking part in siding with anyone, the conflict is still there.”
She continued, “For us, it’s an art to make them deal with the conflict themselves and make the space
open for them to realize all desires cannot be met.” Yet it can be difficult for participants to understand
the importance of certain plans. For example, most of the people in the focus group were not directly
affected by the large 2011 cloudburst flood event, as they live on the side of the park that is elevated.
These participants prefer to use green space for leisure rather than for flood protection. Unfortunately,
there are only a handful of residents in the focus group who live on the flooding side, and these residents
are unsurprisingly very focused on finding hydraulic solutions. This can be perceived as a case of NIMBY
(“not in my back yard”), where homeowners and residents from affluent parts of communities have
greater influence over land uses and environmental decision-making (Bullard, 2001). Issues of
representation in the community focus group will be further discussed in section 5.2.4.
Negotiation is one of the ways that stakeholders collaborate to resolve or address trade-offs. Stakeholder
engagement in the early planning phase suggests actors have a greater potential for negotiation and will
play an active role in the project process (Michels and De Graaf, 2010; Grabow, Hilliker and Moskal, 2006).
The municipality knew from the start that working alongside the residents was absolutely crucial to the
project’s success, and interviewees believe the project leaders have shown great awareness of the
importance of considering diverse perspectives, establishing trust with the residents, and working on the
project in solidarity. One interview participant theorized that “since the area has a history of
confrontations with the state, the municipality might feel like they are representing the state and have an
obligation to honor the resident perspective to the very best of their ability.” Dialogue has always been a
large part of negotiation in the project, and the community focus group is composed of many opinionated
and strong-willed people with different opinions, allowing for interesting, and sometimes intense,
conversations to take place. But for effective negotiation to take place, all decision-makers must be open-
minded and flexible. Interviewees Ruben and Michael from the municipality explained that “when
opposing views are expressed in a meeting, everyone has a chance to speak and argue for their case.
When everyone in the room is open-minded and the opposing perspective is based on reason, issues can
be easily resolved without hurt feelings.” Open-mindedness is thought to be one of the most important
parts of fostering productive dialogue during negotiation, as it demonstrates “a strong willingness to
evaluate self-perceptions by learning from others’ perspectives” (Taylor and Bright, 2011, p.432). Michael
45
continued, “The municipality never turns down an idea for the sake of saying no.” All final decisions made
by the municipality are always explained to ensure all participants remain on the same playing field and
to maintain a relationship built on trust. Still, Mette noted that “Some of the meetings have really ended
up in explosions…with tears and everything, so it’s not easy.” In these instances, Mette explained:
Urban Renewal has to contact [participants] afterwards to have a chat or go on a walk to have a
discussion about it. It was very important for Urban Renewal that everyone remained an
ambassador for the project, because if they started to get angry at us and the project, then the
conflict would arise. Relation work is a very important part of the citizen group.
Admittedly, some interview participants said that it is natural for certain stakeholders, like SLA and the
community focus group, to have increasingly less involvement as the project progresses. However, Ruben
from the municipality explained, “this should not be viewed as something negative,” as these stakeholders
were still able to debate specific aspects, give input as aspects were reframed, and make direct decisions
on the project. They have been a large part of forming the foundation of the project design and will
continue to be consulted until aspects of the project are locked in. Michael continued, “But once plans
become finalized and approved by the local politicians, the project implementation becomes very detailed
and technical, and it becomes the consultant’s job to take all the predetermined ideas and visions and put
them into the actual project without making too many changes.” This process of moving plans forward is
typical in conventional governance and runs counter to The Soul of Nørrebro’s adaptive governance
approach that aims to allow the community focus group continuous communication, a more permanent
participatory process, and involvement in the management and maintenance phase of the project (SLA,
2016). Establishing permanence of the community focus group would allow community members to self-
organize through the project’s completion to ensure long-term resilience, yet based on interviews, there
are seemingly no plans for the permanence of the community focus group. When Urban Renewal ended
in 2019, Mette said:
We talked a lot about how the citizens could continue involvement in the project moving
forward…but the [focus] group had expressed that they were a little bit tired, and they only
wanted to get involved when there was something to get involved in. Sometimes the citizens felt
that Urban Renewal was inviting them for a meeting a little too often, but for Urban Renewal it
was so important to have continuous dialogue with them so they could all stay connected and so
everyone didn’t lose sight of the process and consensus that was made.
The municipal planners and SLA have been very fond of working with the community focus group and
know the importance of their involvement. But unfortunately, Mette said “they don’t have the same
resources to keep up, so the community focus group has scaled down since the end of Urban Renewal.”
Still, she said, “the planners involved in the group continue to move the dialogue forward and meet with
them when there are items to decide on.” Based on this feedback, a more permanent participatory
process may not be feasible for neither the municipality nor the citizens.
5.2.4 Representativeness Nørrebro is one of Copenhagen’s most ethnically diverse neighborhoods, yet the vast majority of the
participants in the community focus group are Danish or from other parts of Scandinavia. The ethnic
community does not participate in general public meetings either. All the interview participants have
outwardly admitted that the community has unfortunately not been represented fairly in this project.
46
Urban Renewal and the municipality have tried many times to invite and engage this part of the
community, as they genuinely want to hear their opinions and carry out projects that they could enjoy
and feel proud of. Sometimes, Mette said, “we were able to go meet with them in small groups.” Yet it
seems the underrepresented community does not want to participate, and the municipality cannot force
them to. While reflecting on why this may be, some interview participants were completely unsure. Others
proposed that it could be cultural. Ruben imagined:
In Denmark, there is a long history of citizen involvement, so Danish residents expect to have their
voices heard; if people from other countries who live in Nørrebro are not used to being heard, or
if they assume that their voices do not matter in the planning department, then perhaps they feel
no need to engage with the municipality.
Interviewee Thomas wondered if it could be a matter of not knowing how to participate, especially if
community involvement is not normal where they are from. Mette reflected that “It has to do with
language barriers, or not feeling comfortable, not feeling welcomed.” The way in which community
engagement is carried out could differ in other countries, and it’s worth considering the extent to which
different community members feel that they can engage in public projects. Interview participants also
reported that several other groups of people have not been represented in the community focus group.
This includes: the elderly, low-income residents, people without homes, and other “social outcasts” who
may struggle with substance abuse. Additionally, resident Tommy explained that “there are some
residents who join the meetings only for a short amount of time because they have small children who
prevent them from staying longer.” Ensuring representativeness in citizen engagement is a deficiency of
the collaborative decision-making process and a challenge for adaptive governance more generally.
The underrepresentation of Nørrebro’s diverse and minority residents seems to be a widely
acknowledged problem in the community focus group. But Mette added:
People may point out that there are no people of different ethnicities represented, but they do
not think about how they could be more welcoming, like by having meetings in other places to
make it more convenient for these populations. They are very used to participating in a certain
way and may not want to change their engagement process.
Multiple interview participants did, however, report that collaborative efforts by the residents have tried
very hard to make special considerations for the perceived needs and wants of this underrepresented
group. Interviewee Tommy grew up and has lived in Nørrebro all his life. He has seen some of the violence
within the community and understands the neighborhood’s character. He said he “wanted to join the
project as damage control to make sure the municipality didn’t implement plans that weren’t in the best
interest of the people.” While there are voices that try to speak for the ones who are not there, and
according to Mette, “Community members who speak for an underrepresented group is often accepted
as a solution,” Ruben admitted, “of course, it is not the same as getting direct representation.” The fact
that this is an issue that is openly and widely discussed, however, demonstrates awareness and a sincere
desire to want to improve engagement strategies in the future.
Unique to Copenhagen is the wide-spread recognition, understanding, and strategically leveraged notion
that green and blue infrastructure projects are effective tools to adapt to climate change impacts.
Copenhagen scores high among Europe’s capitals when it comes to climate change adaptation by using
nature-based designs, and in recent years, ‘Urban Nature’ has become a guiding concept for planning in
47
Copenhagen to improve biodiversity, bring values of nature into the city, and inspire people to be more
ecologically conscious (European Commission, 2014; City of Copenhagen, 2011; Technical and
Environmental Management, 2015). However, discussions with interviewees point toward Denmark’s
neoliberal tendencies to privatize and promote competition based on the ideologies of Urban Nature.
From the beginning of the project, The Soul of Nørrebro has been focused on carrying out specific project
“themes,” such as “cloudburst solutions,” “Urban Nature,” or “culture.” With such a strong focus, it may
be reasonable to assume that representative community involvement could have been better prioritized.
Social justice must also be discussed alongside Urban Nature, as people do not have equal relationships
to nature. Svava thoughtfully reflected, “It’s assumed that people have identical behavioristic human
needs, but often it’s white men, having a privileged position in society, who are able to identify these
needs. We need a more politically aware discussion and a historically aware discussion.” Many researchers
try to bring these topics to the surface, so including them in planning processes would help fuel a critical
dialogue that could improve fair implementation of social-ecological projects based on collaboration and
nature. The Soul of Nørrebro is about helping Copenhagen become a leading city that uses Urban Nature
for large cloudburst solutions, but it’s more than acquiring the technological knowledge on stormwater
management—it’s about public space in one of the most socially challenged areas in Copenhagen
(Københavns Kommune, 2012).
5.2.5 Distribution of power One of the ways that the municipality has tried to establish trust and respect among collaborative
decision-makers is by immediately and outwardly presenting issues as they arise, instead of sitting on
them for a couple months while figuring out how to frame the problem. Ruben and Michael explained,
“It’s best to show the citizens how difficult it is to implement plans. They will understand.” An equal two-
way flow of information is achieved by proactively making efforts to educate participants to ensure the
knowledge about the system is understood (Reed et al., 2013). Transparency is also essential for
community involvement in decision-making, as it is thought to equalize power dynamics among
stakeholders by making things clear, holding accountability, and contributing to legitimacy (Kosack and
Fung, 2014).
Still, in The Soul of Nørrebro, there are several instances that point towards the potential misuse of power
from institutional authority, from funding sources, and from within the community. Nørrebro has a history
of violence and other social tensions, which has called attention to state actors (Københavns Kommune,
2012). Urban Renewal stepped in to help solve some of these tensions, and there are many people who
have the authority and resources to address these problems. However, it is very important that these
people with power are not speaking or acting on behalf of the community. Furthermore, it can be difficult
to prevent money from steering the conversation in different directions. One interviewee pointed out
that while there have been many dialogues during community focus group meetings, “it can sometimes
feel like a waste of time,” since many conversations also take place outside of the meeting room. These
conversations apparently do not always reflect what the residents have discussed. This raises the question
of whether decisions are made based on community involvement. Residents seemingly feel that
alternative motives, such as power dynamics and funding within the municipality, may influence certain
plans in the project. Finally, the underrepresentation of community members has allowed certain aspects
of the project to favor more privileged community members. This is why adaptive governance identifies
recognition of differences between groups and cultures as critical. This discrepancy is shown when
residents living on higher ground downplay the importance of solving flooding issues—a case of
48
procedural injustice, or the lack of ability of people affected by decisions to participate in making them—
and again when the football club (a group of middle-aged white males) insisted on a large, artificial field
being located in an area that would create a physical barrier for the children in the ethnically diverse part
of the neighborhood from accessing the park. Mette explained that the football field discussion “was not
a balanced or equal discussion because the club had the politicians’ favor. If the club didn’t get what they
wanted, they would just go to the politicians who were in favor of a high-profile field being implemented.”
This shows that the football club misused their power, disregarding the open dialogue platform that the
community focus group served as. These instances of power imbalance may also stem from the
underrepresentation of Nørrebro’s community during planning and decision-making processes, as certain
stakeholders hold ‘more power,’ ‘different power,’ and ‘power over’ other stakeholders (Persson,
Harnesk, and Islar, 2017).
In The Soul of Nørrebro, all stakeholders take part in shaping project outcomes, and involving the
community has helped build synergy. The way in which the community focus group has collaborated with
stakeholders demonstrates that the municipality does not just want feedback from the community, but
they want them to develop and steer the project. This is a deeper form of engagement than in
conventional participatory planning. Mette explained, “I’ve seen so many planners who think that
involving the community is just something you have to do to check off a box—I feel like the project
succeeded at getting the municipality, SLA, and the engineers at Rambøll to really appreciate the
community group’s input.” However, the original project proposal may have set idealistic expectations to
gain leverage in the 2016 Nordic Built Cities Challenge. Tensions between the project’s predetermined
criteria and those that were developed through discussions with stakeholders made collaboration
challenging. There is an ongoing dialogue to best determine how Hans Tavsens Park will be planned, but
trade-offs that result in political decisions that are desirable to some and not to others cannot be avoided
in the end. Standard urban development challenges also tested the team’s ability to collaborate.
Inflexibility of existing infrastructures and regulations is a significant barrier to the project, making urban
sustainable transitions challenging. While certain setbacks were unavoidable, others that were
encountered could have perhaps been prevented through increased transdisciplinary and representative
collaboration. Despite the project’s struggles, the team’s dedication to making good things out of the
project is evident, even if the results are different than originally planned.
49
6. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis investigated how collaborative decision-making supports the development of long-term, social-
ecological resilience in green and blue infrastructure projects. The ways in which collaborative decision-
making is envisioned, implemented, and contested in The Soul of Nørrebro case study were explored
through desk study and stakeholder interviews. Stakeholder perceptions were further analyzed in
alignment with literature on collaborative decision-making. This final chapter first reflects on the positive
and negative aspects of collaborative decision-making in the case study and provides insight into how the
approach might improve in the future. Next, concluding remarks are summarized, and finally, suggestions
for future research are presented.
6.1 Reflections on key learnings There are several positive aspects of collaborative decision-making in The Soul of Nørrebro. Leveraging
the project’s cloudburst solutions to turn the onsite school’s problem with lack of teaching space into an
educational opportunity is a great example of how The Soul of Nørrebro’s stakeholder synergies can result
in widespread benefits for the community. The project has also made great collaborative efforts to
reconcile trade-offs when opposing views arise. For instance, the municipality and SLA have been open-
minded and flexible in adjusting designs to fulfill resident desires, as understood when changing plans for
the FabLab for City Nature and implementing a football field. Moreover, the collaborative partnerships
formed during the planning and design phases have connected community members in a new way.
Resident Tommy explained, “it’s an experience we will all take with us…the process of creating a
community plan has been more important than the plan itself! We all know so many people now, which
could hopefully result in the community working together on other future projects.” In the end, Tommy
believes “it has certainly brought the community closer together.”
While many of the ideas that were put forth in The Soul of Nørrebro were compelling and innovative, they
may have been unrealistic, leading to frustration and disappointment among stakeholders and the
community. One interview participant described the project as “a pie in the sky,” insinuating that the plan
is filled with empty wishes or promises. Driven by technological determinism and neoliberal trends,
society tends to solve complex, technical problems with complex, technical solutions and rely on
marketable notions, such as Urban Nature, to gain recognition, praise, and funding. This can skew
intended outcomes, especially when plans are conducted through processes that are unequally
representative of the community. Despite Copenhagen’s inherently democratic planning practices and
long history of mandatory public participation, certain community groups have not been represented
fairly in this project. The academic community, ethnic community, low-income populations, people
without homes, the elderly, and people with small children are some of the actors left out. While the
project has reportedly tried numerous times to engage with these populations, more directed efforts to
be more inclusive could have perhaps been prioritized.
It could be argued that planners have an obligation to ensure diverse groups are involved in decision-
making. Planners must not minimize the social inequality that vulnerable populations experience, as
planning for a more resilient ecological environment must also include protection of all people. As the
community focus group is limited by its narrow representation, the project’s goal of honoring Nørrebro’s
culture to create social renewal and long-term cohesion has arguably not been met. If decisions about
public space and climate mitigation are not made to specifically counter and actively prevent social
50
disadvantages caused by unequal access to resources, Nørrebro risks pushing out the residents that
initiatives like Urban Renewal try to empower. As climate resilience cannot be sustainably addressed
without addressing housing needs and other economic or social priorities, certain aspects of
representative community involvement could have received more time and funding to find solutions to in
The Soul of Nørrebro. Seeking out leaders from preexisting local groups to lead planning conversations
may help demonstrate a willingness to accommodate needs, integrate new values into future public
spaces, and promote and celebrate different cultural traditions. Investing in initiatives to involve the youth
can also be particularly impactful in years to come. Additionally, residents should be provided with
adequate resources to participate in decision-making processes. Programs and policies that encourage
collaboration must provide support for participants, which can include compensating residents for their
time, holding meetings in spaces that belong to marginalized groups, providing transportation and meal
assistance, and offering childcare services.
It is possible that the system in which community participation has been built is fundamentally
discriminatory towards historically marginalized communities. If planners are not willing to interrogate
existing approaches to citizen engagement, underrepresentation caused by a flawed participatory system
will not be addressed. Instead of inviting minority community members to join the municipality in a group
that is largely white, well-educated, and affluent, planners should reconsider the institutional framework
for planning with community involvement to make rules of engagement that primarily serve the needs of
underrepresented groups. If the ethnically diverse residents of Nørrebro are truly unfamiliar with
Copenhagen’s collaboration processes (as presumed by interview participants), resources should be
poured into taking steps to change the participation process and educating residents to overcome this
barrier. Taking the time to get to know each household, finding individual ways of engaging residents, and
employing a variety of communication tactics can help establish a more inclusive approach to community
involvement.
The project’s turbulent journey to achieve a uniform vision among stakeholders suggests that intended
outcomes have become unclear. Is this a project about sustainable rainwater management? Or is this a
project about increasing community cohesion? The original proposal aims to address both matters, yet its
inability to do so indicates that collectively solving two, complex social-ecological problems with one large
project may result in an overwhelmed decision-making team. Berkes and Folke (1998) in Folke et al. (2005,
p.443) explain that “the term ‘social-ecological’ system to emphasize the integrated concept of humans
in nature and to stress that the delineation between social and ecological systems is artificial and
arbitrary.” Coupling these matters can lead to ‘holistic reductionism:’ “by incorporating more and more
aspects of a problem into the analysis in an overly reductive way, either the problem itself, aspects
thereof, or both, run the risk of being simplified or trivialized” (Olsson and Jerneck, 2018, p.2). Perhaps
combining social and ecological considerations to create more resilient and sustainable systems is
inherently faulty, or perhaps the scale at which it is done can greatly influence the results. As The Soul of
Nørrebro is a product of a design competition, the innovative and radical elements found within may have
been too far reaching for the neighborhood park scale. This speaks to the competitive and economically
oriented realm of design, which does not always necessarily benefit local citizens.
The ideas laid out in the proposal were designed to meet the requirements of the 2016 Nordic Built Cities
Challenge. Thus, the experts working on problem solving in Nørrebro could have gravitated towards
solving problems that they, the experts, knew how to solve, which may not be the problems of public
concern, overlooking the local knowledge. Instead of working on smaller projects that the community
51
chooses, plans, and designs themselves, the proposal has been focused on accomplishing a huge project
that perhaps nobody asked for, and in the end, not much has been accomplished. Moreover, conflict has
emerged as the design challenge criteria prioritized ‘smart, outstanding, and innovative’ Nordic design to
gain international recognition for excellence, yet the project relied on community involvement to achieve
real progress and implement the plan. To prevent the problematic disconnect between priorities/motives
and implementation in the future, design challenge guidelines could perhaps include ‘foresight of local
and contextual decision-making’ as one of the main criteria.
Many stakeholders involved in The Soul of Nørrebro have never been a part of a project that has engaged
so much with community members. The project is one of the first of Copenhagen’s cloudburst plans, so it
has also been a bit experimental. It has succeeded at challenging the way in which public parks are used,
and it has tackled a collaborative process that has never been done before. In spite of the project’s
setbacks and disagreements, The Soul of Nørrebro has created a project that has local anchorage, and the
team has done so through elements of collaborative decision-making. The conflict of how public green
space should be optimally used is a dilemma that society may see much more of in the years to come. The
Soul of Nørrebro has been a pertinent example of how new governance strategies and leadership can
shape the way forward when planning to adapt cities to the impending scenarios of climatic caused crises.
6.2 Concluding remarks The Soul of Nørrebro vision was honored with an ‘Award of Excellence’ for its innovative 2016 proposal
that aimed to achieve climate adaptation and resilience while adding social and recreational value through
urban renewal. Stakeholder interviews revealed, however, that the project has lost momentum, struggles
with low morale, and has encountered setbacks that may ultimately prevent core elements from being
implemented. This can partly be attributed to setbacks that are standard for urban development
challenges (unforeseen administrative dilemmas, political arguments, and the sheer amount of time,
money, and dedication that is required to settle debates about specific elements of the space). Innovative
projects risk encountering such challenges and delays, as they are recurrent in the management and
planning of novel ideas. Other struggles can be attributed to lack of transdisciplinarity in early
collaboration. The project can be criticized for its inability to fairly represent the neighborhood’s
population through the community focus group, and for the overly ambitious scale of its original plans.
Nevertheless, The Soul of Nørrebro proposal for Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade has undeniably
facilitated synergies across multiple agendas in an attempt to create a ground-breaking plan that
reimagines the way in which public green spaces are used. It has created a platform for countless
dialogues among a wide range of stakeholders and community members, embraced different
perspectives, and encountered many new learnings.
The project addresses and is challenged by elements of adaptive governance, including: diversity,
embracing uncertainty and surprise, adaptive capacity, feedback loops, holistic and iterative thinking,
overcoming path dependency, building trust and respect, reconciling trade-offs through openness and
flexibility, taking the time to educate involved actors, addressing power disparities among members, and
engaging in transdisciplinary and reflexive collaborations from the start. The Soul of Nørrebro case study
has demonstrated that these elements make collaborative decision-making in planning extremely
difficult. This provides valuable insight that the adaptive governance approach may not be the most
economically feasible way of implementing plans. All governance approaches have shortcomings, and
adaptive governance is no different. Achieving resilient social-ecological systems is an idealized notion in
52
adaptive governance frameworks that cannot be easily defined and measured, as working towards
resilience is a continual process that will always have trade-offs and is constantly changing. Furthermore,
Boyd and Juhola (2015, p.1242) point out that the framework “does not explicitly consider the agency of
the actors but focuses more on the patterns of systemic interaction.” This may ignore critical
considerations of power among stakeholders. However, it is clear that cities transitioning to more
sustainable systems must approach governance in non-traditional ways, and planning processes that
address challenges by prioritizing collaboration and the just representation of community voices will be
well-received and promise the most honest attempt at working towards long-lasting social-ecological
resilience. As Jane Jacobs (1961, p.421) eloquently stated, “City administration needs to be more complex
in its fundamental structure so it can work more simply.”
There are several key learnings from The Soul of Nørrebro that can be applied to future green and blue
infrastructure projects considering a governance framework that prioritizes collaborative decision-
making. These principles include: emphasizing the importance for planners to think about what they can
realistically accomplish; small projects may be easier to contextualize, and thus more productive; engaging
in transdisciplinary collaborations before a proposal is made is best; integrating expert knowledge and
local knowledge is a delicate balance; collaboration will always result in trade-offs; partnerships, trust,
and respect take time to develop; funding has a way of setting the project priorities; collaboration is a
process and a long-term commitment; the planning and decision-making process is more important than
the outcome; fair representation must be prioritized; and new ways of inclusive engagement should be
explored—“Like knowledge, power is enhanced when it is shared” (Gharajedaghi, 2006, p.316).
6.3 Suggestions for future research All academic research must be critically examined. In this study, stakeholder perceptions of collaborative
decision-making are unique to The Soul of Nørrebro project. All planning projects have historical and
structural context and thus lack the ability to substantially contribute to future planning practice
(Diefenbach, 2008). Therefore, planning practice would benefit from additional empirical evidence
investigating how collaborative decision-making in adaptive governance is valuable to achieving long-term
social-ecological resilience in green and blue infrastructure projects.
Additional questions to be considered for future research that have derived from this study include:
• How does stormwater management and climate adaptation planning affect community
heritage, including traditional customs and how people relate to places?
• To what extent do different underrepresented community groups feel that they can engage
in public planning processes?
• What are the most productive and effective ways of engaging with residents who are
historically underrepresented in planning processes?
• How can cities establish reliable, well-known communication pathways so that large projects
can be instigated more easily from a community-need driven perspective?
This is a critical study of a globally renowned case study on green and blue infrastructure. The Soul of
Nørrebro has come a long way in its planning and decision-making process; the project has had small
victories along the way, and there have been challenges that can help advance similar urban design and
climate adaptation projects in the future. The lessons learned from navigating an innovative collaboration
strategy that combines expert and local knowledge are relevant for practitioners seeking new ways of
53
building climate resilience in urbanizing cities while improving livability and well-being for community
members. Participation from a wide range of local stakeholders and citizens is an integral part of re-
designing public space, as it helps create cohesive, just, and ecologically productive environments. This
study reinforces the need for planners to reconceptualize conventional ways of implementing sustainable
urban development projects to move past the rigid procedures, power dynamics, preconceived notions,
and competition embedded in government and within ourselves.
54
7. LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Cover picture: proposed plan for Hans Tavsens Park (Nordic Built Cities Challenge, 2016, p.20)......... 1
Figure 1: the Nørrebro neighborhood in Copenhagen, Denmark (Google Maps, 2020) ....................... 9
Figure 2: project at Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade (Nordic Built Cities Challenge, 2016, p.6) .......... 9
Figure 3: Hans Tavsens Park before the design proposal, captured in 2016 (Nordic Built Cities
Challenge, 2016, p.4) ............................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4: The Soul of Nørrebro proposed plan for Hans Tavsens Park – tranquility after a cloudburst
(SLA, 2016, p.2) ...................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5: proposed plan for everyday and cloudburst rain will be collected in Hans Tavsens Park and
led down Korsgade to the lake (SLA, 2016, p.6, edited by the author) ................................. 12
Figure 6: Korsgade street, captured in December 2018 (Google Maps, 2020) .................................... 13
Figure 7: proposed plan for Korsgade street during torrential rain (Nordic Built Cities Challenge,
2016, p.38) ............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 8: urban space between two school yards, captured in November 2012 (Google Maps, 2020)
............................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: proposed plan for urban space between two school yards (Nordic Built Cities Challenge,
2016, p.2) ............................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10: stakeholder engagement and project development from 2011 through estimated project
end, author’s own depiction .................................................................................................. 35
TABLES
Table 1: summary of six prominent characteristics of collaborative decision-making ................. 26
Table 2: overview of interview participants and their respective roles and responsibilities ........ 30
55
8. REFERENCES
Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W., Heinrichs, H., Klein,
A.M., Lang, D.J., Martens, P. and Walmsley, D., 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for
sustainability. Ecological Economics, [e-journal] 103, pp.29–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-
200432.
Acuto, M., 2013. City Leadership in Global Governance. Global Governance, [e-journal] 19(3), pp.481-
498. Available at: https://www-jstor-org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/24526208 [Accessed 6 March 2020].
Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L. and Matthews, C., 2016. Trends and Directions in Environmental
Justice: From Inequity to Everyday Life, Community, and Just Sustainabilities. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, [e-journal] 41(1), pp.321–340. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052 [Accessed 7 April 2020].
Albers, M. and Deppisch, S., 2013. Resilience in the Light of Climate Change: Useful Approach or Empty
Phrase for Spatial Planning? European Planning Studies, [e-journal] 21(10), pp.1598–1610.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722961.
Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K., 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. 2nd
ed. [e-book] Lund and Stockholm: SAGE Publications. Available at: https://uk-sagepub-
com.focus.lib.kth.se/en-gb/eur/reflexive-methodology/book250864 [Accessed 23 March 2020].
Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, [pdf] 35(4),
s. 216-224.
Baibarac, C. and Petrescu, D., 2017. Co-design and urban resilience: visioning tools for commoning
resilience practices. CoDesign, [e-journal] 15(2), pp.91–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1399145.
Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), 2017. Critical Sustainability
Studies: Green Gentrification, [online] Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability.
Available at: http://www.bcnuej.org/green-gentrification/ [Accessed 16 June 2020].
Barnes, J., Conrad, K., Demont-Heinrich, C., Graziano, M., Kowalski, D., Neufeld, J., Zamora, J. and
Palmquist, M., 1994-2020. Generalizability and Transferability, [online] The WAC Clearinghouse.
Colorado State University. Available at https://wac.colostate.edu/resources/writing/guides/ [Accessed
11 May 2020].
Bashir, M., Afzal, M.T. and Azeem, M., 2008. Reliability and Validity of Qualitative and Operational
Research Paradigm. Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, [e-journal] 4(1), pp.35-45.
https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v4i1.59.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for
Novice Researchers . The Qualitative Report, [e-journal] 13(4), pp.544-559. Available at:
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2 [Accessed 29 March 2020].
56
Berg, B. L., 2001. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th ed, [pdf] Boston: Allyn and
Bacon. Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&context=ssw_mstrp
[Accessed 30 March 2020].
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2003. Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for
complexity and change. [e-book] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Y5FnAq9kjxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Navigating+social%E
2%80%93ecological+systems:+building+resilience+for+complexity+and+change,&ots=-
u864dfA7W&sig=Tqmah9QjZGvr7Y-
0nRyrU_UD7a4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Navigating%20social%E2%80%93ecological%20systems%3
A%20building%20resilience%20for%20complexity%20and%20change%2C&f=false [Accessed 17 April
2020].
Berkes F, Folke C, eds., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social
Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. and Schoon, M.L. (Eds.), 2015. Principles for building resilience: Sustaining
ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available
at: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/publications/artiklar/2016-02-02-principles-for-building-
resilience-sustaining-ecosystem-services-in-social-ecological-systems.html. [Accessed 7 May 2020].
Bingham, L.., Armour, T., Hetherington, D. and Magnini, E., 2018. Cities Alive: Water for People. [pdf]
London: ARUP, pp.1–153.
Blomkvist, P. and Johansson, P. eds., 2016. Systems Thinking in Industrial Dynamics. In: A Dynamic Mind:
Perspectives on Industrial Dynamics in Honour of Staffan Laestadius. [pdf] Stockholm: Division of
Sustainability and Industrial Dynamics, Department of Industrial Economics and Management (INDEK),
KTH. Available at:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9b6f/97e3199c6e1a9e78f7c38a8a474647d2153a.pdf?_ga=2.1656104
92.2122046747.1586464618-933212610.1586464618 [Accessed 10 April 2020].
Blok, A., Christensen, A.G., Krarup, T. and Laage-Thomsen, J., 2019. The civics of urban greening: topics,
tendencies and tensions from the frontlines of sustainable transition, [online] Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen Department of Sociology. Available at: https://www.sociology.ku.dk/about/news/the-
civics-of-urban-greening-topics-tendencies-and-tensions-from-the-frontlines-of-sustainable-transition/
[Accessed 24 May 2020].
Boyd, E. and Juhola, S., 2014. Adaptive climate change governance for urban resilience. Urban Studies,
[e-journal] 52(7), pp.1234–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014527483.
Brand, F.S. and Jax, K., 2007. Focusing the Meaning(s) of Resilience: Resilience as a Descriptive Concept
and a Boundary Object. Ecology and Society, [online] 12(1). Available at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/ [Accessed 11 April 2020].
Brears, R.C., 2018. Blue and Green Cities: The Role of Blue-Green Infrastructure in Managing Urban
Water Resources. [e-book] London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QwtQDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=blue+and+green+
infrastructure+history&ots=xbC3Dwh_nN&sig=-
57
ie4pfOql3IYGGZG6VDgFsY7Pu8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=blue%20and%20green%20infrastructure%2
0history&f=false [Accessed 6 May 2020].
Brenner, N., Marcuse, P. and Mayer, M., 2009. Cities for people, not for profit. City, [e-journal] 13(2–3),
pp.176–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810903020548.
Brody, S.D., Godschalk, D.R. and Burby, R.J., 2003. Mandating Citizen Participation in Plan Making: Six
Strategic Planning Choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, [e-journal] 69(3), pp.245–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308978018.
Brondizio, E.S. and Tourneau, F.-M.L., 2016. Environmental governance for all. Science, [e-journal]
352(6291), pp.1272–1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5122.
Bryman, A., 2008. Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. [e-book] New York: Oxford University Press.
Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=N2zQCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=doQwCUM2ri&sig
=9vAWZ8AV_2fhcx1aOvUh4-1XlMA&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=face&f=false [Accessed 14 March 2020].
Buizer, M., Elands, B. and Vierikko, K., 2016. Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity
concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, [e-journal] 62, pp.7–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003.
Buizer, M., Elands, B., Mattijssen, T., van der Jagt, M., Ambrose, B., Gerőházi, É., Santos, A., Møller, M.S.,
2015. The governance of urban green spaces in selected EU-cities. [pdf] EU Seventh Framework
Programme. Available at: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/333699 [Accessed 16 April
2020].
Bullard, R.D., 2001. Environmental Justice in the 21st Century: Race Still Matters. Phylon (1960-), [e-
journal] 49(3/4), p.151. Available at: https://www-jstor-org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/3132626 [Accessed
25 April 2020].
Callicott, K.J., 2003. Culturally Sensitive Collaboration Within Person-Centered Planning. Focus on Autism
and Other Developmental Disabilities, [e-journal] 18(1), pp.60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760301800108.
Casal-Campos, A., Fu, G., Butler, D. and Moore, A., 2015. An Integrated Environmental Assessment of
Green and Gray Infrastructure Strategies for Robust Decision Making. Environmental Science &
Technology, [e-journal] 49(14), pp.8307–8314. Aavailable at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1021/es506144f [Accessed 2 March 2020].
City of Copenhagen, 2011. Copenhagen Climate Adaptation Plan. [pdf]. Copenhagen: Københavns
Kommune. Available at: https://en.klimatilpasning.dk/media/568851/copenhagen_adaption_plan.pdf
[Accessed 28 May 2020].
Chapin, S., 2020. Grassroots stewardship : sustainability within reach. [e-book] New York, Ny: Oxford
University Press. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?id=PHXnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=downsides+of+grassro
ots+climate+planning&source=bl&ots=U4qHDVViGL&sig=ACfU3U2-myUuCWYUIU4dzbxOt8EwKi-
58
NtA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8nMndr__pAhUAAhAIHTZPCyUQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=d
ownsides%20of%20grassroots%20climate%20planning&f=false [Accessed 13 June 2020].
Chithra, S.V., Harindranathan, N., Amarnath, A. and Anjana, N.S., 2015. Impacts of Impervious Surfaces
on the Environment. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, [e-journal] 4(5), pp.2319-
6734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154613.
Clar, C., 2019. How demographic developments determine the management of hydrometeorological
hazard risks in rural communities: The linkages between demographic and natural hazards
research. WIREs Water, [e-journal] 6(6). Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1002/wat2.1378
[Accessed 7 April 2020].
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament (COM) 2013/0249 final on Green
Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital, 2013. Official Journal, [online] Available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249#document1 [Accessed 4
March 2020].
Cohen, D. and Crabtree, B., 2006. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project, [online] Princeton: Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation. Available at: http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html [Accessed 11
May 2020].
Conrad, C.C. and Hilchey, K.G., 2010. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental
monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, [e-journal] 176(1–4),
pp.273–291. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 [Accessed 15
April 2020].
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: the New Tyranny? [e-book] London: Zed Books. Available
at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aoeTa0OWDnMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&ots=WdAwtWEygc&si
g=mVewGEZ059_abcJxt7cCaKBjT8I&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 15 April. 2020].
Creswell J. W. and Poth, C.N., 2018. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 4th ed. [e-book] Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DLbBDQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=-
gv52cDRRA&sig=FSVahxbhObmQaFNCJ7qoeKrRsug&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 24
March 2020].
Cretney, R., 2014. Resilience for Whom? Emerging Critical Geographies of Social-ecological
Resilience. Geography Compass, [e-journal] 8(9), pp.627–640. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1111/gec3.12154 [Accessed 11 April 2020].
C40.org., 2012. Why Cities? Ending Climate Change Begins in the City, [online] Available at
https://www.c40.org/ending-climate-change-begins-in-the-city [Accessed 6 March 2020].
Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K., 2013. Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative
Research, [e-journal] 14(5), pp.603–616. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/1468794113488126 [Accessed 24 March 2020].
59
De Vos, A., Biggs, R., and Preiser, R., 2019. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: a
review of place-based studies. Ecology and Society, [e-journal] 24(4):16.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11236-240416.
Diefenbach, T., 2008. Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?: Methodological problems
of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews. Quality & Quantity, [e-
journal] 43(6), pp.875–894. Available at: https://link-springer-
com.focus.lib.kth.se/content/pdf/10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2020].
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C., 2003. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, [e-journal]
302(5652), pp.1907–1912. Available at: https://www-jstor-org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/3835713
[Accessed 14 April 2020].
Einstein, K.L., Palmer, M. and Glick, D.M., 2018. Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from
Meeting Minutes. Perspectives on Politics, [e-journal] 17(1), pp.28–46. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1017/S153759271800213X [Accessed 6 April 2020].
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management
Review, [e-journal] 14(4), p.532. Available at: https://www-jstor-org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/258557
[Accessed 26 March 2020].
Eisenman, T.S., 2013. Frederick Law Olmsted, Green Infrastructure, and the Evolving City. Journal of
Planning History, [e-journal] 12(4), pp.287–311. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/1538513212474227 [Accessed 6 May 2020].
Empey, T., Flanagan, C., Hanson, G., Hintelmann, L., Mason, G., Sgro, A., Webster, K., Yuen, C., Lister,
N.M., Boudreau, S. and King, L., 2016. Wet Infrastructure: Building Blue and Green. [pdf] Toronto:
Ryerson School of Urban and Regional Planning.
Erixon, H., Borgström, S. and Andersson, E., 2013. Challenging dichotomies – exploring resilience as an
integrative and operative conceptual framework for large-scale urban green structures. Planning Theory
& Practice, [e-journal] 14(3), pp.349–372. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/14649357.2013.813960 [Accessed 7 May 2020].
European Commission, 2014. Green Infrastructure in Denmark. [pdf] Brussels: Publications Office of the
European Union. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/pdf/Green%20Infrastructure/GI_DK.pdf
[Accessed 28 May 2020].
European Commission, 2015. Towards an EU Research and Innovation policy agenda for Nature-Based
Solutions & Re-Naturing Cities. [pdf] Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Fischer, J., Gardner, T.A., Bennett, E.M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Daw, T., Folke, C., Hill, R.,
Hughes, T.P., Luthe, T., Maass, M., Meacham, M., Norström, A.V., Peterson, G., Queiroz, C., Seppelt, R.,
Spierenburg, M. and Tenhunen, J., 2015. Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–
ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, [e-journal] 14, pp.144–
149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002.
60
Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., Ashley, R., Butler, D., Arthur, S., Trowsdale, S., Barraud, S.,
Semadeni-Davies, A., Bertrand-Krajewski, J.-L., Mikkelsen, P.S., Rivard, G., Uhl, M., Dagenais, D. and
Viklander, M., 2014. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more – The evolution and application of terminology
surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal, [e-journal] 12(7), pp.525–542. Available at:
https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314 [Accessed 6 May 2020].
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological
systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, [e-journal] 30(1), pp.441–473.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Walker, B., 2002. Resilience and
Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. AMBIO: A Journal
of the Human Environment, [e-journal] 31(5), pp.437–440. Available at: https://www-jstor-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/4315276 [Accessed 9 April 2020].
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J., 2010. Resilience
thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, [e-journal] 15(4):
20. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/ [Accessed 5 April 2020].
Folke, C., Colding, J. and Berkes, F., 2002. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social–
ecological systems. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change,
[e-journal] pp.352–387. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1017/CBO9780511541957.020 [Accessed 1 April 2020].
Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N. and McPhearson, T., 2016. Advancing urban environmental governance:
Understanding theories, practices and processes shaping urban sustainability and
resilience. Environmental Science & Policy, [e-journal] 62, pp.1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.008.
Fraser, N., 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the "Postsocialist" Condition. [e-book] New
York: Routledge. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ELZpAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=JY78PWtVZJ&sig=9
zanRUhbDWVH-
05Qsi6ZftpUns4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=recognition%20and%20distribution&f=false [Accessed 7
April 2020].
Fung, A., 2003. Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their
Consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, [e-journal] 11(3), pp.338–367. Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9760.00181 [Accessed 12 April 2020].
Galletta, A., 2013. Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond: From Research Design to
Analysis and Publication. [e-book] New York: NYU Press. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NdbtHg6sPgIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=semi+structured+res
earch+interview&ots=dyEAVXZGWl&sig=a9Za3XhK5RooCtqGXyqYHSZ7jiA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fl
exible&f=false [Accessed 11 May 2020].
61
Geels, F.W., 2005. The dynamics of transitions in social-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the
transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, [e-journal] 17(4), pp.445–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320500357319.
Geels, F.W. and Kemp, R., 2007. Dynamics in social-technical systems: Typology of change processes and
contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, [e-journal] 29(4), pp.441–455.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009.
Geos Institute’s ClimateWise® Team (Geos Institute), 2019. Climate ready communities: a practical guide
to building climate resilience. [pdf] Ashland: Geos Institute. Available at
https://climatereadycommunities.org/learn-more/about-guidebook/ [Accessed 3 April 2020].
Gharajedaghi, J., 2006. Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity. [e-book] Burlington MA:
Butterworth- Heinemann. Available at: https://www-sciencedirect-
com.focus.lib.kth.se/book/9780750679732/systems-thinking [Accessed 10 April 2020].
Goldman, A. and Whitcomb, D., 2011. Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. [e-book] Oxford:
University Press. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WuFoAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&ots=yeMuXoCtvF&si
g=KjPFrpI404JOJA6v_oFAOoZjyXY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 27 March 2020].
Grabow, S., Hilliker, M. and Moskal, J., 2006. Comprehensive Planning and Citizen Participation, [online]
Madison, WI: Cooperative Extension Publishing. Available at:
https://counties.extension.wisc.edu/jefferson/files/2010/09/CPCPfinal06.pdf [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Gulsrud, N.M., Hertzog, K. and Shears, I., 2018. Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?:
Investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environmental Research, [e-journal] 161,
pp.158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005.
Haaland, C. and van den Bosch, C.K. 2015. Challenges and strategies for urban green-space planning in
cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, [e-journal] 14(4), pp.760–
771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.009.
Haas, T., ed., 2008. New Urbanism and Beyond: Contemporary Ideas and Thoughts. New York: Rizzoli
International Publications, Inc.
Hedensted Lund, D., Sehested, K., Hellesen, T. and Nellemann, V., 2012. Climate change adaptation in
Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta-governance? Local Environment, [e-journal]
17(6–7), pp.613–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678318.
HOFOR, 2016. Climate Resilience Programme for Storm water and Sewer Services. [pdf] HOFOR Greater
Copenhagen Utility. Available at: https://www.hofor.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/climate_resilience_programme_faktaark_2016.pdf [Accessed 16 March
2020].
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, [e-journal] 4(1), pp.1–23. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245 [Accessed 8 April 2020].
62
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D. & Leveson, N. C. Eds., 2006. Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts.
[e-book] Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?id=AFQ8DwAAQBAJ&q=intrinsic+ability+#v=snippet&q=intrinsic%20abili
ty&f=false [Accessed 8 April 2020].
Hornborg, A., 2011. Global Ecology and Unequal Exchange: Fetishism in a Zero-Sum World. New York:
Routledge.
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem-Based Management: The Institutional Analysis
and Development Framework. Environmental Management, [e-journal] 24(4), pp.449–465. Available at:
https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/s002679900246 [Accessed 15 April 2020].
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 2003. Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue In: M.A.
Hajer and H. Wagenaar eds. 2003. Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the
Network Society. [e-book] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 1 pp.33-59. Available at: Google
Books
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k8mVZYSrchQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA33&dq=Collaborative+Poli
cy+Making:+Governance+through+Dialogue&ots=_SF_wyHd2S&sig=FhSdcoAS8QLRjygwD-
_EEjx6Gjs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Collaborative%20Policy%20Making%3A%20Governance%20thro
ugh%20Dialogue&f=false [Accessed 4 April 2020].
Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E., 1999. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the
American Planning Association, [e-journal] 65(4), pp.412–423. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/01944369908976071 [Accessed 4 April 2020].
Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, Inc.
Jim, C.Y. and Chen, W.Y., 2008. Assessing the ecosystem service of air pollutant removal by urban trees
in Guangzhou (China). Journal of Environmental Management, [e-journal] 88(4), pp.665–676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.035.
Johansson, B. and Quigley, J.M., 2003. Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in
Regional Science, [e-journal] 83(1), pp.165–176. https://dio.org/10.1007/s10110-003-0181-z.
Joseph, J., 2013. Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: a governmentality approach. Resilience, [e-
journal] 1(1), pp.38–52. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/21693293.2013.765741
[Accessed 11 April 2020].
Kabisch, N., 2015. Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban green space
planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy, [e-journal] 42, pp.557–567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.005.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M., Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn,
H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K. and Bonn, A., 2016. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation
and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities
for action. Ecology and Society, [e-journal] 21(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239.
Karvonen, A., 2010. MetronaturalTM: Inventing and reworking urban nature in Seattle. Progress in
Planning, [e-journal] 74(4), pp.153–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2010.07.001.
63
Karvonen, A. and Yocom, K., 2011. The Civics of Urban Nature: Enacting Hybrid Landscapes. Environment
and Planning A: Economy and Space, [e-journal] 43(6), pp.1305–1322. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1068/a43382 [Accessed 4 April 2020].
Kellens, W., Terpstra, T. and De Maeyer, P., 2012. Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A
Systematic Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis, [e-journal] 33(1), pp.24–49. Available at:
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/3163311/file/6787664.pdf [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Kitchin, R., Tate, N.J., 2000. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and
Practice. [e-book] Essex: Prentice Hall. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UZdEAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=u1yIMa9roq&sig=
_hVH6EyZGEJdm9YQErc-kvReMRU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 24 March 2020].
Keck, M. and Sakdapolrak, P., 2013. What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways
forward. Erdkunde, [e-journal] 67(1), pp.5–19. https://doi.org/10.3112/erdkunde.2013.01.02.
Kettl, D. F., 2002. The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century
America. [e-book] Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=I_vVBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=IpvIvo2iD2&sig=d8
nUyPl7Hgvsz1g5eq_N1ZHRizs&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=local&f=false [Accessed 15 April 2020].
Kleinschmit, D., Böcher, M. and Giessen, L., 2009. Discourse and expertise in forest and environmental
governance — An overview. Forest Policy and Economics, [e-journal] 11(5–6), pp.309–312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.001.
Kosack, S. and Fung, A., 2014. Does Transparency Improve Governance? Annual Review of Political
Science, [e-journal] 17(1), pp.65–87. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1146/annurev-
polisci-032210-144356 [Accessed 14 May 2020].
Københavns Kommune, 2012. Policy for disadvantaged areas of Copenhagen. [pdf] Copenhagen:
Københavns Kommune. [Accessed 5 May 2020].
Københavns Kommune, 2014. Områdefornyelse Nørrebro: Kvarterplan 2014 – 2019. [pdf] Copenhagen:
Københavns Kommune. [Accessed 12 May 2020].
Københavns Kommune, 2016. Jury statement: “cloudburst and culture – renewal of Hans Tavsens Park
and Korsgade in Nørrebro.” [pdf] Copenhagen: Københavns Kommune. Available at:
https://www.nordicinnovation.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/Jury-Statement-Hans-Tavsens-Park-
and-Korsgade-Stage-2.pdf [Accessed 13 May 2020].
Krasny, M.E. and Tidball, K.G., 2009. Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental
education. Environmental Education Research, [e-journal] 15(4), pp.465–482. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/13504620903003290 [Accessed 9 April 2020].
Landezine, 2016. The Soul of Nørrebro by SLA, [online] Landezine Landscape Architecture Platform.
Available at: http://landezine.com/index.php/2016/11/nature-based-climate-adaptation-wins-
scandinavias-biggest-architecture-award/ [Accessed 24 May 2020].
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M. and Thomas, C.J.,
2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and
64
challenges. Sustainability Science, [e-journal] 7(S1), pp.25–43. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x [Accessed 16 April 2020].
Law, J., 2007. Making a mess with method. In: Outhwaite, William and Turner, Stephen P. eds. The Sage
Handbook of Social Science Methodology. [e-book] London: Sage, pp.595–606. [Accessed 23 March
2020].
Lawrence, J., Sullivan, F., Lash, A., Ide, G., Cameron, C. and McGlinchey, L., 2013. Adapting to changing
climate risk by local government in New Zealand: institutional practice barriers and enablers. Local
Environment, [e-journal] 20(3), pp.298–320. https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/13549839.2013.839643 [Accessed 6 March 2020].
Lawrence, R.J. and Després, C., 2004. Futures of Transdisciplinarity. Futures, [e-journal] 36(4), pp.397–
405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.005.
Lepofsky, J. and Fraser, J.C., 2003. Building Community Citizens: Claiming the Right to Place-making in
the City. Urban Studies, [e-journal] 40(1), pp.127–142. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/00420980220080201 [Accessed 5 April 2020].
Liao, K.H., Deng, S. and Tan, P.Y., 2017. Blue-Green Infrastructure: New Frontier for Sustainable Urban
Stormwater Management. Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements. [pdf] pp.203–226.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4113-6_10.
Lissandrello, E. and Grin, J., 2011. Reflexive Planning as Design and Work: Lessons from the Port of
Amsterdam. Planning Theory & Practice, [e-journal] 12(2), pp.223–248. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/14649357.2011.580156 [Accessed 13 May 2020].
Liu, Z., He, C. and Wu, J., 2016. The Relationship between Habitat Loss and Fragmentation during
Urbanization: An Empirical Evaluation from 16 World Cities. PLoS ONE, [e-journal]
11(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154613.
Louise Barriball, K. and While, A., 1994. Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion
paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, [e-journal] 19(2), pp.328–335. Available at: https://onlinelibrary-
wiley-com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x [Accessed 27 March 2020].
Lovell, S.T. and Taylor, J.R., 2013. Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green
infrastructure in the United States. Landscape Ecology, [e-journal] 28, pp.1447–1463. https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y [Accessed 2 March 2020].
Lynch, K., 1960. The image of the city. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
McMahon, E.T. and Benedict, M.A., 2002. Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the 21st century.
[e-book] Bethesda: Renewable Natural Resources Foundation. Available at:
https://www.merseyforest.org.uk/files/documents/1365/2002+Green+Infrastructure+Smart+Conservati
on+for+the+21st+Century..pdf [Accessed 6 May 2020].
Mell, I.C., 2017. Green infrastructure: reflections on past, present and future praxis. Landscape
Research, [e-journal] 42(2), pp.135–145. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/01426397.2016.1250875 [Accessed 6 May 2020].
65
Michels, A. and De Graaf, L., 2010. Examining Citizen Participation: Local Participatory Policy Making and
Democracy. Local Government Studies, [e-journal] 36(4), pp.477–491. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/03003930.2010.494101 [Accessed 22 April 2020].
Ministry of Finance, 2017. Report for the Voluntary National Review: Denmark’s implementation of the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [pdf] Copenhagen: Ministry of Finance. Available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/16013Denmark.pdf [Accessed 24 May
2020].
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2020. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark now advises
against all unnecessary travel, [online] 13 March 2020. Available at:
https://um.dk/en/news/newsdisplaypage/?newsID=9BC6D8F4-FF81-4A6A-B2C7-44FC743F7392
[Accessed 24 March 2020].
Mol, A., 1999. Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions. The Sociallogical Review, [e-journal]
47(1_suppl), pp.74–89. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1111/j.1467-
954X.1999.tb03483.x [Accessed 23 March 2020].
Molin, J.F. and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C., 2014. Between Big Ideas and Daily Realities – The roles
and perspectives of Danish municipal green space managers on public involvement in green space
maintenance. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, [e-journal] 13(3), pp.553–561.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.03.006.
Naldi, L., Nilsson, P., Westlund, H. and Wixe, S., 2015. What is smart rural development? Journal of Rural
Studies, [e-journal] 40, pp.90–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.006.
Naumann, S., Davis, M., Kaphengst, T., Pieterse, M. and Ratment, M., 2011. Design, Implementation and
Cost Elements of Green Infrastructure Projects. [pdf] Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/GI_DICE_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 5 Mar.
2020].
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), 2013. Making Public Participation Legal. [pdf]
Available at: http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/MakingP2Legal.pdf [Accessed 6 April 2020].
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K.N., Rusch, G.M., Waylen, K.A., Delbaere, B., Haase, D., Jones-
Walters, L., Keune, H., Kovacs, E., Krauze, K., Külvik, M., Rey, F., van Dijk, J., Vistad, O.I., Wilkinson, M.E.
and Wittmer, H., 2017. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary
perspective. Science of The Total Environment, [e-journal] 579, pp.1215–1227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.106.
Nordic Built Cities Challenge, 2016. The Soul of Nørrebro: Hans Tavsens Park, Blågård School, and
Korsgde. [pdf] Oslo: Nordic Innovation. Available at:
https://www.nordicinnovation.org/sites/default/files/inline-
images/Soul%20of%20Norrebro_booklet.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2020].
Olsson, L. and Jerneck, A., 2018. Social fields and natural systems: integrating knowledge about society
and nature. Ecology and Society, [e-journal] 23(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10333-2303226.
66
Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J. and O’Byrne, D., 2015. Why resilience is unappealing to
social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science
Advances, [e-journal] 1(4), p.e1400217. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400217.
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling, C.S., 2006. Shooting
the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and
Society, [e-journal] 11(1). Available at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/ [Accessed
15 April, 2020].
Ottinger, G., 2013. Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps. Science, Technology, &
Human Values, [e-journal] 38(2), pp.250–270. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/0162243912469669 [Accessed 7 April 2020].
Panagopoulos, T., González Duque, J.A. and Dan, M.B., 2016. Urban planning with respect to
environmental quality and human well-being. Environmental Pollution, [e-journal] 208, pp.137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.07.038.
Pereira, L., Karpouzoglou, T., Doshi, S. and Frantzeskaki, N., 2015. Organising a safe space for navigating
social-ecological transformations to sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, [e-journal] 12(6), pp.6027-6044. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606027.
Persson, S., Harnesk, D. and Islar, M., 2017. What local people? Examining the Gállok mining conflict and
the rights of the Sámi population in terms of justice and power. Geoforum, [e-journal] 86, pp.20–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.08.009.
Plemmons, D. and Barker, A.W., 2016. Anthropological ethics in context : an ongoing dialogue. Walnut
Creek, California: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Pohl, C., 2005. Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, [e-journal] 37(10),
pp.1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.009.
Potter, K. and Vilcan, T., 2020. Managing urban flood resilience through the English planning system:
insights from the ‘SuDS-face.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences, [e-journal] 378:20190206. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1098/rsta.2019.0206 [Accessed 11 April 2020].
President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCDS), 1999. Towards a sustainable America,
advancing prosperity, opportunity and a healthy environment for the 21st Century, [online] Washington,
DC: President’s Council on Sustainable Development Publications. Available at:
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=je4qYSDLS7IC&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&ots=8LHoi0E8Ub&sig=G
rz6DfT1Y1p2nohAWdeP7V1EEK4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=actively%20seek%20&f=false [Accessed 6
May 2020].
Pyett, P.M, 2003. Validation of Qualitative Research in the “Real World.” Qualitative Health Research, [e-
jounral] 13(8), pp.1170–1179. Available at: https://journals-sagepub-
com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/1049732303255686 [Accessed 26 March 2020].
67
Queirós, A., Faria, D., Almeida, F., 2017. Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative
research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, [e-journal] 3(9), pp.369-387.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089.
Ramboll, 2016a. Strengthening blue-green infrastructure in our cities: enhancing blue-green
infrastructure & social performance in high density urban environments. [pdf] US: Ramboll, Liveable
Cities Lab. Available at:
https://ramboll.com/megatrend/~/media/B350ABC1D9D0489AA54955B43D853EE9.ashx [Accessed 14
April 2020].
Ramboll, 2016b. Urban Development Project in Copenhagen Wins Nordic Award, [online] State of Green.
Available at: https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/state-of-green/news/urban-development-project-
in-copenhagen-wins-nordic-award/ [Accessed 14 March 2020].
Ramboll Group, 2016. Hans Tavsens Park – Soul of Norrebro, [online] Available at:
https://ramboll.com/projects/rdk/hans-tavsens-park [Accessed 14 March 2020].
Reed, M.S., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., Broad, K., Burt, T.P., Fazey, I.R., Fraser, E.D.G., Hubacek, K., Nainggolan,
D., Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C. and Ravera, F., 2013. Participatory scenario development for
environmental management: A methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK
uplands. Journal of Environmental Management, [e-journal] 128, pp.345–362.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, [e-
journal] 4(2), pp.155–169. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/BF01405730 [Accessed
6 March 2020].
Sáez, L., 2013. Methods in Governance Research: A Review of Research Approaches. Effective States and
Inclusive Development. [pdf] Available at: http://www.effective-states.org/wp-
content/uploads/working_papers/final-pdfs/esid_wp_17_saez.pdf [Accessed 27 March 2020].
Schusler, T.M., Decker, D.J. and Peffer, M.J., 2003. Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource
Management. Society & Natural Resources, [e-journal] 16(4), pp.309–326. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/08941920390178874 [Accessed 13 May 2020].
Seale, C., 1999. Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, [e-journal] 5(4), pp.465–478.
Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/107780049900500402 [Accessed 27 March 2020].
Sellberg, M. M., C. Wilkinson, and G. D. Peterson, 2015. Resilience assessment: a useful approach to
navigate urban sustainability challenges. Ecology and Society [e-journal] 20(1):43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07258-200143.
Sinnett, D., Smith, N. and Burgess, S., 2015. Handbook on green infrastructure : planning, design and
implementation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sismondo, S., 2010. An introduction to science and technology studies. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
SLA, 2016. Climate Adaptation Copenhagen: The Nordic Model for our cities. [pdf] SLA. Available at:
https://www.sla.dk/files/2914/9449/3217/SLA_Ramboll_HansTavsensPark_UK.pdf [Accessed 3 March
2020].
68
Smith, A. and Stirling, A., 2008. Social-ecological resilience and social-technical transitions: critical issues
for sustainability governance. [pdf] STEPS Working Paper 8. Brighton: STEPS Centre. Available at:
https://steps-
centre.org/anewmanifesto/manifesto_2010/clusters/cluster7/Transitions_Working_Paper.pdf
[Accessed 9 April 2020].
Smith, A., Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical
transitions. Research Policy, [e-journal] 34(10), pp.1491–1510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005.
Smith, E., 2008. Using Secondary Data in Educational and Social Research. [e-book] Berkshire: McGraw-
Hill Education. Available at: Google Books
https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qudEBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=secondary+data+de
sk+research&ots=T0vT3RNR2b&sig=qrR9BjIjemChydxmJ5CdSsVm6QA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=seco
ndary%20data%20desk%20research&f=false [Accessed 26 March 2020].
Soga, M. and Gaston, K.J., 2016. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature
interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, [e-journal] 14(2), pp.94–101. Available at:
https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1002/fee.1225 [Accessed 3 March 2020].
Somarakis, G., Stagakis, S. and Chrysoulakis, N. (Eds.)., 2019. ThinkNature Nature-Based Solutions
Handbook. EU Horizon 2020, [online] Available at: https://platform.think-
nature.eu/system/files/thinknature_handbook_final_print_0.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3HnQdeovektfH2k9mDfQJ
BIQbid-YNtwmok_ssm4HjXDAsjih2KKlx68E [Accessed 2 March 2020].
Steel, B.S. and Weber, E., 2001. Ecosystem management, decentralization, and public opinion. Global
Environmental Change, [e-journal] 11(2), pp.119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00062-5.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T.M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C.P.,
Barnosky, A.D., Cornell, S.E., Crucifix, M., Donges, J.F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S.J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R.
and Schellnhuber, H.J., 2018. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, [e-journal] 115(33), pp.8252–8259.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115.
Stewart, I.D. and Oke, T.R., 2012. Local Climate Zones for Urban Temperature Studies. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, [e-journal] 93(12), pp.1879–1900. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-
11-00019.1.
Stringer, L., Dougill, A., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C. and Reed, M., 2006. Unpacking “Participation” in
the Adaptive Management of Social–ecological Systems: a Critical Review. Ecology and Society, [online]
11(2). Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ [Accessed 2 April 2020].
Taylor, S.N. and Bright, D.S., 2011. Open-Mindedness and Defensiveness in Multisource Feedback
Processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, [e-journal] 47(4), pp.432–460. Available at:
https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/0021886311408724 [Accessed 13 May 2020].
Technical and Environmental Management, 2015. City nature in Copenhagen 2015-2025. [pdf]
Copenhagen: Technical and Environmental Management. Available at:
https://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/index.asp?mode=detalje&id=1447 [Accessed 28 May 2020].
69
Theodore, N., Peck, J. and Brenner, N., 2013. Neoliberal Urbanism: Cities and the Rule of Markets. In: G.
Bridge and S. Watson, eds., The New Blackwell Companion to the City. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell,
pp.1–784.
Tyler, S. and Moench, M., 2012. A framework for urban climate resilience. Climate and Development, [e-
journal] 4(4), pp.311–326. Availiablt at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/17565529.2012.745389
[Accessed 11 April 2020].
Udo K., 2006. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: purposes and
advantages, Qualitative Research in Psychology, [e-journal] 3(4), pp.293-311. Available at: https://www-
tandfonline-com.focus.lib.kth.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/1478088706070839?needAccess=true [Accessed 27
March 2020].
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UN DESA), 2019. World
Population Prospects: Probabilistic Population Projections, [online] Available at:
http://population.un.org/wpp/ [Accessed 2 March 2020].
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), 2018. 2018 Revision of World
Urbanization Prospects, [online] Available at:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-
prospects.html [Accessed 6 March 2020].
University of Southern Denmark Library and University of Copenhagen (SDU and KU), n.d. Empirical
studies. Better Thesis: Your Online Support, [online] Available at: http://betterthesis.dk/research-
methods/empirical-studies [Accessed 29 March 2020].
Van der Heijden, J., Patterson, J., Juhola, S. and Wolfram, M., 2018. Special section: advancing the role of
cities in climate governance – promise, limits, politics. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, [e-journal] 62(3), pp.365–373. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/09640568.2018.1513832 [Accessed 15 April 2020].
Walker, G., 2009. Beyond Distribution and Proximity: Exploring the Multiple Spatialities of
Environmental Justice. Antipode, [e-journal] 41(4), pp.614–636. Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2009.00691.x [Accessed 7 April 2020].
Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., Roe, J., Robertson, L. and Miller, D., 2016. Mitigating Stress and
Supporting Health in Deprived Urban Communities: The Importance of Green Space and the Social
Environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, [e-journal] 13(4),
p.440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040440.
White, I. and O’Hare, P., 2014. From Rhetoric to Reality: Which Resilience, Why Resilience, and Whose
Resilience in Spatial Planning? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, [e-journal] 32(5),
pp.934–950. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1068/c12117 [Accessed 9 April 2020].
Whitehead, M., 2013. Neoliberal Urban Environmentalism and the Adaptive City: Towards a Critical
Urban Theory and Climate Change. Urban Studies, [e-journal] 50(7), pp.1348–1367. Available at:
https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1177/0042098013480965 [Accessed 1 April 2020].
70
Wilson, M.C., Chen, X.-Y., Corlett, R.T., Didham, R.K., Ding, P., Holt, R.D., Holyoak, M., Hu, G., Hughes,
A.C., Jiang, L., Laurance, W.F., Liu, J., Pimm, S.L., Robinson, S.K., Russo, S.E., Si, X., Wilcove, D.S., Wu, J.
and Yu, M., 2015. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future
challenges. Landscape Ecology, [e-journal] 31(2), pp.229–230. Available at: https://doi-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1007/s10980-015-0312-3 [Accessed 2 March 2020].
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F. and Loorbach, D., 2017. Actor roles in transition:
Insights from social-ecological perspectives. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, [e-
journal] 24, pp.45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003.
Wolfram, M., Borgström, S. and Farrelly, M., 2019. Urban transformative capacity: From concept to
practice. Ambio, [e-journal] 48(5), pp.437–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01169-y.
Wolfram, M., van der Heijden, J., Juhola, S. and Patterson, J., 2018. Learning in urban climate
governance: concepts, key issues and challenges. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, [e-journal]
21(1), pp.1–15. Available at: https://doi-org.focus.lib.kth.se/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1558848
[Accessed 15 April 2020].
Wolsink, M., 2016. ‘Sustainable City’ requires ‘recognition’—The example of environmental education
under pressure from the compact city. Land Use Policy, [e-journal] 52, pp.174–180. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715004159 [Accessed 10 March 2020].
Wong, S., 2009. Climate change and sustainable technology: Re-linking poverty, gender, and
governance. Gender and Development, [e-journal] 17(1), pp.95-108. Available at: https://www-jstor-
org.focus.lib.kth.se/stable/pdf/27809209.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A331492d0ad52f7b67113bd730966c
753 [Accessed 24 April 2020].
Wyborn, C.A., 2015. Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: adaptive
governance and connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society, [e-journal] 20(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06510-200111.
71
9. APPENDICIES
Appendix A: interview questions
Opening
1. Could you briefly describe your role in the Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade project?
2. What are you hoping to achieve as a stakeholder in this project?
Decision-making
3. In what way have you been consulted by the municipality, or other stakeholders, to give input in
the Hans Tavsens Park and Korsgade project?
4. Who do you perceive to be in charge of setting the agenda? Why?
5. What measures are taken to ensure mutual trust, respect, and solidarity among stakeholders?
6. What is the best way to reconcile different perspectives and manage conflict?
7. Has the project changed at all since creating the original proposal? In what ways?
Community participation
8. Based on your own personal experience, how would you describe efforts to involve local
community perspectives and input? Was anyone left out?
9. How did you build upon the area’s existing qualities and unique local spirit? What was the
greatest challenge of this?
10. Can you describe what the close dialogue with the area’s users and residents looked like?
11. Did you consider how the users of the park will change over time?
12. What will the long-term management and maintenance of the park look like?
13. Do you believe a collaborative approach has influenced residents’ behaviors on civic
engagement, local politics, and democracy?
Closing
14. Why do you think The Soul of Nørrebro was the winning project in the Nordic Built Cities
Challenge? How did it beat the other 145+ entries?
15. What aspects of governance and collaboration work well in this project? What would you want
to improve?
16. Which aspect of the project do you regard as the most promising, exiting, or important in terms
of achieving socio-ecological resilience?
17. Is there anything else that you would like to share about this project?
TRITA -ABE-MBT-20614
www.kth.se