Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research ...

http://www.diva-portal.org

Postprint

This is the accepted version of a paper published in . This paper has been peer-reviewed butdoes not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Mascarenhas, A., Langemeyer, J., Haase, D., Borgström, S., Andersson, E. (2021)Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research through a novel analyticalapproachEcology and Society, 26(4): 19https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12631-260419

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-305460

Copyright © 2021 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.Mascarenhas, A., J. Langemeyer, D. Haase, S. Borgström, and E. Andersson. 2021. Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinaryresearch through a novel analytical approach. Ecology and Society 26(4):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12631-260419

Research, part of a Special Feature on Holistic Solutions Based on Nature: Unlocking the Potential of Green and BlueInfrastructure

Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research through a novelanalytical approachAndré Mascarenhas 1, Johannes Langemeyer 1,2, Dagmar Haase 1,3, Sara Borgström 4 and Erik Andersson 5,6

ABSTRACT. Inter- and transdisciplinary research projects bring with them both challenges and opportunities for learning among allstakeholders involved. This is a particularly relevant aspect in social-ecological research projects, which deal with complex real-worldsystems and wicked problems involving various stakeholders’ interests, needs, and views, while demanding expertise from a wide rangeof disciplines. Despite its importance in such research efforts, the learning process is often not the primary focus of investigation andtherefore the knowledge about it remains limited. Here, we put forward an analytical framework that was developed to assess thelearning process of both the research team and other participating stakeholders within the scope of an international transdisciplinaryproject dealing with urban green and blue infrastructure. The framework is structured around five dimensions of the learning process:“Why learn?” (the purpose of knowledge generation and sharing); “What to learn about?” (the types of knowledge involved); “Whoto learn with?” (the actors involved); “How to learn?” (the methods and tools used); 'When to learn?' (the timing of different stages).We developed an interview protocol to operationalize the framework and tested our approach through interviews with projectresearchers. Based on our empirical results, we draw main lessons learned that can inform other transdisciplinary projects. These includecapitalizing on what already exists, addressing trade-offs inherent to different types of knowledge, fostering inter- and transdisciplinarity,engaging stakeholders, supporting a learning environment and fostering reflexivity. Besides the empirical insights and the lessons wepresent, the main contribution of this research lies in the analytical framework we developed, accompanied by a protocol to apply itin practice. The framework can capture the learning process taking place in transdisciplinary research more comprehensively thansimilar existing frameworks. The five intertwined dimensions it covers are essential to understand and plan such learning processes.

Key Words: interdisciplinarity; knowledge; learning; reflexivity; stakeholders; transdisciplinarity

INTRODUCTIONMutual learning and self-reflexivity are key for transdisciplinaryknowledge production (Polk and Knutsson 2008, Jahn et al. 2012,Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014), which in turn is an importantprocess underlying the resilience and sustainability of social-ecological systems (Brandt et al. 2013, Clark et al. 2016,Hoffmann et al. 2017; Evely et al. 2012, unpublished manuscript,https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.2079&rep=rep1&type=pdf). Transdisciplinarity is, at its core, “both criticaland self-reflexive: It not only systematically scrutinizes in whichways knowledge is produced and used by different societal actorsin support of their concerns; it also methodically challenges howscience itself deals with the tension between its constitutivepursuit of truth and the ever increasing societal demand for theusefulness of its results” (Jahn et al. 2012:9). A greater recognitionof the different ways of understanding and working withknowledge is thus needed. So is moving away from merelytechnical approaches to knowledge exchange, limited to uni-directional, linear exchanges (Reed et al. 2014).

Knowledge that supports action toward sustainable developmentshould be perceived by stakeholders as salient (relevant to theirneeds), credible (scientifically adequate), and legitimate(unbiased, fair, and respectful of stakeholders’ divergent valuesand beliefs; Cash et al. 2003). Existing research suggests that theattributes of knowledge co-production processes—tightly linkedwith knowledge legitimacy—are important determinants ofwhether that knowledge leads to action (Posner et al. 2016).

Approaches to assess such attributes are therefore needed, in linewith calls for monitoring, reflecting on, and continuously refiningknowledge exchange as a flexible process (Reed et al. 2014). Thelearning process often refers to the production of knowledge asa joint process among stakeholders, including scientists (Walteret al. 2007, Vilsmaier et al. 2015), building on the notion of mutuallearning, defined as “the basic process of exchange, generation,and integration of existing or newly developing knowledge indifferent parts of science and society” (Scholz 2001:118).

Despite its importance in transdisciplinary social-ecologicalresearch efforts, the learning process is often not the primary focusof investigation and therefore the knowledge about it remainslimited. Literature presenting self-reflections by researchers onthe learning taking place in transdisciplinary efforts is rare, whileempirical studies of learning often remain implicit regarding wholearns about what and why (van Mierlo et al. 2020). Empiricalevidence from the different parties involved in transdisciplinaryresearch is needed to improve the existing body of knowledge andbetter support guidance for knowledge exchange (Reed et al.2014). Hence, several authors stress the need for more studiesfocusing on learning, for example in the context of sustainabilitytransitions research (van Mierlo et al. 2020).

In this article we put forward an analytical framework that wasdeveloped to assess the learning process of both the research teamand other participating stakeholders within the scope of aninternational transdisciplinary project dealing with urban green

1Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Geography, Landscape Ecology Lab, Berlin, Germany, 2Institute of Environmental Science andTechnology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 3Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Department ofComputational Landscape Ecology, Leipzig, Germany, 4Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTHRoyal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 5Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 6North-WestUniversity, Unit for Environmental Sciences, Potchefstroom, South Africa

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12631-260419

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=144

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=144

mailto:[email protected]










https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.2079&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.2079&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/

and blue infrastructure (GBI). Drawing from existing literature,the framework is structured around five dimensions of thelearning process, covering (i) the purpose of knowledgegeneration and sharing, (ii) the actors involved in the learningprocess, (iii) the knowledge, insights, ideas, and perspectivesinvolved in the learning process, (iv) the methods and tools usedin the learning process, (v) the timing of different stages in thelearning process. Because knowledge can be seen as context-dependent and strongly related to an individual’s perceptions andworldview (Gibbons et al. 1994; Evely et al. 2012, unpublishedmanuscript), we developed an interview protocol to operationalizethe framework and tested our approach through interviews withproject researchers. Our empirical results from a multi-case studyresearch project offer insights into a learning process taking placein different contexts but under a common overarching conceptualframework. Such an international perspective across localcontexts is seen as increasingly important in urban research(Hurley et al. 2016). We conclude by drawing main lessons learnedand take-home messages, which can inform other transdisciplinaryprojects.

METHODS

Analytical frameworkOur approach covers the different components of a knowledgesystem (Posner et al. 2016): the knowledge co-production process,the participants in the process, and the resulting knowledge itself.However, we refer to the process as a “learning process” insteadof knowledge co-production or knowledge exchange process(Enengel et al. 2012, Reed et al. 2014). This is in line with a shiftingunderstanding of knowledge, from “knowledge as a thing” thatcan be produced, given, and received, toward “knowledge as aprocess” that is evolving and context-specific (Raymond et al.2010, Reed et al. 2014; Evely et al. 2012, unpublished manuscript).It also aligns with our interest not only in knowledge sensu stricto(which can be interpreted in a more formal sense, related toeducation), but also on ideas, insights, or perspectives that thedifferent participants in the learning process might gain. In thissense, we follow a definition of learning process from thetransitions literature, as “the process of acquiring and generatingnew knowledge and insights, and of meaning-making ofexperiences in communicative interaction, in a reciprocalrelationship with the social, (bio-)physical and institutionalcontext. Moreover, it is a non-linear, iterative process in whichideas and possibilities for collaborative action are beingdeveloped, experimented with and pursued in a diversity ofnetworks” (van Mierlo et al. 2020:253).

We drew on existing literature to develop our analyticalframework for assessing the learning process taking place intransdisciplinary research. As noted by Hoffmann et al. (2017),various frameworks have been developed to structure evaluations(ex ante or ex post; formative or summative) of transdisciplinaryresearch. However, most of them are unsuitable or too limited forour purpose. For example, very few differentiate types of actorinvolvement at different stages of the research (Hoffmann et al.2017). Our framework draws more heavily on the works ofEnengel et al. (2012), Hoffmann et al. (2017), and Roux et al.(2017). On a study about the specific challenges for implementingco-production of knowledge in doctoral studies, Enengel et al.(2012) developed an analytical framework to compare

transdisciplinary case studies, consisting of the followingelements: (1) typology of actor roles: Who?, (2) research phases:When?, (3) objectives and forms of actor integration: Why?, and(4) types of knowledge: What? Hoffmann et al. (2017) adaptedthe framework by Enengel and colleagues to comparetransdisciplinary integration across four synthesis processesregarding different types of generated knowledge (what?),different types of involved actors (who?), and different levels ofactor involvement (how?) at different stages of the processes(when?). The study by Roux et al. (2017) is the most aligned withour purpose because it focuses on mutual learning withintransdisciplinary research, specifically on three aspects that couldguide researchers in designing and facilitating such learning: “whoto learn with,” “what to learn about,” and “how to learn.” Thedevelopment of the analytical framework was supported by jointreflections and feedback from all consortium researchers ininternal workshops throughout the ENABLE project (describedbelow).

Our analytical framework is structured around five dimensionsof the learning process (Fig. 1):

Fig. 1. Analytical framework to assess the learning process intransdisciplinary research. Adapted from Enengel et al. (2012),Hoffmann et al. (2017), Roux et al. (2017).

. Why learn? (the purpose of knowledge generation andsharing);

. What to learn about? (the knowledge, insights, ideas, andperspectives involved in the learning process);

. Who to learn with? (the actors involved in the learningprocess);

. How to learn? (the methods and tools used in the learningprocess);

. When to learn? (the timing of different stages in the learningprocess).

The purpose of knowledge generation and sharing (Why learn?)is linked to the applicability of knowledge. This can take variousforms, but two general purposes are particularly relevant: (i)knowledge to develop policy options, strategies, decisions,practices (applicability for policy or society); (ii) knowledge todevelop theories, methods, and models (applicability for science).These can be regarded as poles in a gradient, which reflect a life-

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/


world approach vs. an inner-scientific approach totransdisciplinary efforts (Jahn et al. 2012), linked with local orcontext-specific knowledge vs. generalized knowledge (Raymondet al. 2010, Enengel et al. 2012). This dimension differs from the“Why?” by Enengel et al. (2012), which was focused on differenttypes of stakeholder involvement.

The knowledge, insights, ideas, and perspectives involved in thelearning process (What to learn about?) can be limitless, so severalauthors have developed typologies of knowledge. We considerthree mutually dependent types of knowledge inherent totransdisciplinary research as particularly relevant (Hadorn et al.2008): (i) systems knowledge of empirical processes andinteractions of factors, addressing questions about the origin,development, and interpretation of life-world problems; (ii) targetknowledge concerning questions related to determining andexplaining the need for change, desired goals, and better practices;(iii) transformation knowledge dealing with questions abouttechnical, social, legal, cultural, and other means of action totransform existing practices and introduce desired ones. We werealso interested in “knowledge on how to create knowledge,” whichrefers to a reflection about the research approach (e.g., howdifferent methods can be combined to generate knowledge onGBI-related issues in different case study cities; Dunford et al.2018).

Regarding the participants of the learning process (Who to learnwith?), we identified two main groups: (a) the research team; (b)other project stakeholders. These can be further detailed,following the five categories developed by Ritter et al. (2010) andadopted by Enengel et al. (2012): (i) core scientists: the mainscientific actors throughout the course of a project; (ii) scientificconsultants: academic experts who support the core group; (iii)professional practice experts: practitioners who are often veryfamiliar with the practical and political aspects of the issuesinvestigated, but not necessarily with the specific local casecontext; (iv) strategic case actors: practitioners at case level witha specific formal or informal responsibility, or professionalcompetence; (v) local case actors: all other actors involved in theprocesses at the case level. It can be relevant to consider alternativeways of categorizing participants, for example according to thetypes of knowledge they represent (Roux et al. 2017) or to theirlevel of interest and influence on the project (Reed 2008).

The methods and tools used in the learning process (How tolearn?) will vary across projects and case studies, but two conceptsare important here (Opdam et al. 2015, Roux et al. 2017): (i)boundary concepts: a special case of boundary objects (e.g.models, indicators, and maps). Co-production of these objectscan establish shared interest and bridge understanding acrossmultiple knowledge domains. Similarly, boundary concepts,which are non-material, can play a mediating and translating rolein a transdisciplinary context, by creating a discursive space insettings with a common urgency, but without consensus or acommon knowledge base; (ii) “third places”: in a transdisciplinarysense, a third place represents a learning space at the interfacebetween academia and practice, where academics and non-academics can have an equal voice when they engage to findcommon ground regarding particular social-ecological issues. Weconsider that third places refer not only to physical spaces, but

more widely to settings that can promote such a learning space(e.g., through a set of rules of engagement).

The timing of different stages in the learning process (When tolearn?) can have several implications, like influencing the policyuptake of scientific knowledge, according to policy windows(Rose et al. 2020). The key stages of a knowledge co-creationprocess can be categorized as (1) problem history, (2) problemidentification and structuring, (3) research design and selectionof methods, (4) data collection, (5) data analysis andtriangulation, (6) reflection/interpretation and synthesis, and (7)dissemination of results (Pohl and Hadorn 2007, Enengel et al.2012).

The framework’s dimensions do not necessarily follow a specificsequence; there can be different and multiple entry points,depending on the features of a specific application (like aims,scope, or time of assessment). For example, if applying theframework ex ante to support the design of a learning process, itmight make sense to start with what motivates the learning process(why learn?), followed by who should be involved (who to learnwith?) and what knowledge, insights, or perspectives are expectedor wanted from participants (what to learn about?), and finallyconsidering methods and tools to support the process (how tolearn?), always keeping in mind the time dimension (when tolearn?).

The ENABLE projectENABLE was a research project funded under the 2015–2016 callfrom BiodivERsA, a network of national and regional fundingorganizations promoting pan-European research on biodiversityand ecosystem services. The project aimed at enabling GBIpotential in complex social-ecological regions using a systemsperspective and engaging local actors in five case studies:Barcelona (Spain), Halle (Germany), Łódź (Poland), Oslo(Norway), and Stockholm (Sweden). New York City (USA) wasalso included as an external node for benchmarking. The researchreported in this article targeted the five European case studies.

As a transdisciplinary project, ENABLE represented anopportunity to foster learning among all participants, includingmembers of the consortium and the different stakeholders whowere engaged in the process, mainly in each case study. Projectpartners developed approaches tailored to each urban region toachieve that aim (as illustrated by many of the articles in thisSpecial Feature) under ENABLE’s common overarchingconceptual framework (Andersson et al. 2019).

InterviewsWe developed an interview protocol to operationalize (ex post)the analytical framework (Appendix 1). Joint reflections andfeedback from all ENABLE researchers in internal workshopsthroughout the project supported the development of theinterview protocol (in line with the analytical framework). Somequestions differed depending on the main group of participants(the research team or the project stakeholders). To contextualizethe results regarding the five dimensions of the framework, it wasalso important to gather information on what participants foundinteresting and useful about the process. This can be used toidentify relevant aspects that influence learning (Restrepo et al.2018). To capture that information we added questions drawing



Table 1. Main topics emerging from the interviews for each dimension of the analytical framework. The contextualizationand details given in the main body of text are essential to interpret the topics listed. Dimension Main topics

Why learn? To improve actionability and relevance for green and blue infrastructure planning and managementTo build a shared systems understandingTo provide a platform for discussion among stakeholdersTo actively enact the integration of transdisciplinary researchTo guide future researchTo expand the individual researchers’ conceptual understanding or methodological toolbox

What to learn about? How to work together with different stakeholders (benefits, challenges, limitations, needs)How to apply different methods to specific issues or contextsHow to (co-)create knowledge (contextualized meaning and use of concepts, boundary concepts)Opportunities to extend and amplify learning processes

Who to learn with? Local authorities (especially planning, environmental, green space management, or similar departments)Initiatives and organizations at sub-municipal scale (e.g., neighborhood)Citizens in generalColleagues in and outside research consortiumPrivate actorsPoliticiansMarginalized groupsGrassroots groups

How to learn? Workshops with local stakeholdersParticipation in expert groupsThematic meetings with individual stakeholdersTraining eventsConsortium workshopsUsing boundary conceptsDevising “third places”

When to learn? Project preparation phaseTemporal alignment with real ongoing processesFollow-up on stakeholder engagement eventsDissemination and assessment of new knowledge

on the Most Significant Change technique (Serrat 2017), a story-based, qualitative method for uncovering most significant projectimpacts experienced by individuals. The main guiding questionused to open a conversation through this technique was: “Whatdid you find most interesting and useful from the project? Whatwere the main “take-home messages”?” Two other questionsincluded in this technique drew on the work by Cvitanovic et al.(2016), one on barriers preventing knowledge exchange and oneon suggestions for improving knowledge exchange.

Ten members of ENABLE’s research team were interviewed peronline call toward the end of the project, between June 2019 andApril 2020. We aimed for individual perspectives (as opposed, forexample to having a spokesperson per case study) because we seethem as most relevant in an inter- and transdisciplinary learningprocess, where researchers within the same team have haddifferent roles. Because of practical constraints it was not possibleto conduct the interviews with project stakeholders across casestudy cities. The first author of the present article conducted allthe interviews and was not included as interviewee, whereas theremaining co-authors were. Interviews were conducted in Englishand lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Interviewees signed aninformed consent form (Appendix 2). The first author transcribedand manually coded the interviews supported by the softwareMAXQDA Plus 2020, release 20.0.8 (VERBI Software 2019). Theremaining co-authors have verified the coding in a subsequentstage, to identify potential inconsistencies or deviations ininterpretation. Interviews were transcribed, in a close way to whatthe interviewees said, but not fully verbatim, because it was the

content of what was being said that was of interest and not thewording (Kuckartz and Rädiker 2019). We anonymizeinterviewees when presenting results in this article, usingidentifiers composed of the initials of the case study city (BAR:Barcelona; HAL: Halle; LOD: Łódź; OSL: Oslo; STO:Stockholm; CC: cross-case) followed by an ordinal number (e.g.,BAR1). This retains the identification of different case studiesand interviewees, which is relevant for the analysis of results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONWe present results according to, first, the different dimensions ofour analytical framework (see Table 1 for a summary), and second,topics cutting across dimensions. Because the analyticaldimensions are closely interrelated, we cross-reference dimensionsalong the text when pertinent, for example by flagging contentthat is relevant for other dimensions with “→[dimension’s shortdesignation].” Given the qualitative nature of this research, wehave tried to highlight recurring topics from the interviews, whilecapturing the diversity of topics brought up by interviewees.However, it is not possible to cover all points raised byinterviewees, so we refer readers to the coded interviews’transcriptions in Appendix 3.

Why learn? Applicability for policy, society, and scienceFindings on the usefulness of the knowledge, insights, orperspectives resulting from ENABLE varied across case studycities while covering the applicability for policy, society, andscience. In terms of applicability for policy and society, becauseof the scope of ENABLE, most of its outputs and outcomes were



aiming to be relevant for GBI planning and management in thecase study cities, or in other words, to be salient (Cash et al. 2003).Overall, the project has raised general awareness about GBIbenefits, enhanced the focus on the social dimension(distributional issues) of GBI, and it provided planningauthorities with data and analyses that they probably could notaccomplish themselves because of time constraints or lack oftechnical capacities. For example, in Oslo, three tools weredeveloped that are already being taken up in practice: a model-based tool to prioritize where green roofs fill demand gaps mosteffectively, which supports planning and zoning decisions; aNordic standard for tree valuation, which can equip Oslo’smunicipality with an up-to-date tree damage compensationassessment that includes ecosystem services; a blue-green factorstandard that can be used as a policy instrument to integrate GBIin new property developments (Horvath et al. 2017). In Łódź,research on children’s exposure to green spaces while walking toschool and the production of a digital sociotope map (a map ofsocial functions of public green spaces; Łaszkiewicz et al. 2020)are among the outputs that have “started to inform the localauthorities on different green space availability and accessibilitystandards” [LOD1]. In Stockholm, through the resilienceassessment, researchers have promoted “more of a systemsunderstanding” that GBI is not only about the infrastructureitself, “but very much a question of how you think about the cityand its inhabitants, around those green and blue spaces” [STO1](see Borgström et al. 2021; Andersson et al., in press). That processalso raised stakeholders’ awareness that GBI “will change and beimpacted by change - demographic, economic, governancechanges, climate change, environmental change” [STO2] (seeBorgström et al. 2021). ENABLE has started a discussion (andprovided supporting knowledge) about how to move beyond thedichotomy of conservation only in natural areas vs. densificationonly in urban areas. In Barcelona, among other efforts that arealigned with policy concerns, a direct contribution to the newmunicipal resilience strategy (De Luca et al. 2021) was highlightedas a relevant ENABLE outcome for the planning andmanagement of GBI.

Both in the Stockholm and Barcelona cases the joint learningprocess itself was noted as useful instead of knowledge as such,which “is very intangible in a way, but we speak now the samelanguage, we understand each other in these forums, and Iunderstand the city’s needs and they understand where we areheading, this is very critical and a fundamental way of bringingin new concepts, new critical ideas into the discussion” [BAR1].The learning process provided a platform for stakeholders “tomeet and discuss things that they normally do not have room fordiscussing in their daily work-life context” [STO2] (→How). Thisfocus on the learning process itself supports the notion thatknowledge is not a package that can simply be transferred fromproducers to users; instead it is better seen as “a process ofinteraction characterized by multiple changing meanings andinterpretations about what the knowledge is about, and howrelevant, challenging, or good it is considered to be” (Tuinstra etal. 2019:135). Related to this, we argue that the saliency of theknowledge produced, apparent in several of the ENABLE cases,was tightly linked to its legitimacy, i.e., respectful of stakeholders’values and beliefs in an unbiased and fair way (Cash et al. 2003),which in ENABLE was actively sought through its

transdisciplinary approach (→How, →Who, →When). Nevertheless,we note the transitory nature of solutions to societal problems,inherent to transdisciplinary research (Jahn et al. 2012). It alsobecame apparent that differences across ENABLE cases in termsof knowledge applicability for policy and society reflect the notionthat actors in the learning process “enter a setting that has alreadybeen shaped by previous experts and past advisory practices,including formal and informal rules and codes of working, as wellas a certain understanding of what counts as authoritativeknowledge” (Tuinstra et al. 2019:128).

Concerning the applicability for science, across cities ENABLEwas seen as useful for considerations of “how to build acomprehensive approach to both understanding and activelyengaging with green and blue infrastructure and its functionalitiesand benefits” [STO1]. The mixed- and multi-methods approachesused within ENABLE (Andersson et al. 2021) “were quite usefulto think about how can we look at and address a specific issuethrough multiple lenses and still combine the insights from them”[STO1]. Similarly, interviewees from Halle and Barcelonahighlighted the thinking around filters through ENABLE’sconceptual framework (Andersson et al. 2021), together with theconcepts of availability, accessibility, and attractiveness of GBI(Biernacka and Kronenberg 2019) in relation to environmentaljustice (Langemeyer and Connolly 2020) as useful for science butalso for policy and society, which underlines their potential to actas boundary concepts (→How). All these insights speak to thenotion of integration, considered to be the main cognitivechallenge of transdisciplinarity and defined as “the cognitiveoperation that establishes a novel, hitherto non-existentconnection between distinct entities of a given context” (Jahn etal. 2012:7). Considering the insights reported throughout thisarticle (see also Andersson et al. 2021), it becomes apparent thatthe ENABLE learning process entailed the three levels ofintegration suggested by Jahn et al. (2012): epistemic(understanding the methods, notions, and concepts of otherdisciplines and recognizing and explicating the limits of one’s ownknowledge); social-organizational (explicating and connectingdifferent interests or activities of participating researchers,subprojects, and larger organizational units); communicative(establishing some kind of common language that advancesmutual understanding and agreement). In this regard, ENABLE’soutcomes could be useful for funding bodies because they show“what interdisciplinary research can be about and what differentparts are needed, ... other capacities than [ordinary] researchprojects” [STO2]. Finally, interviewees also noted that thelearning from ENABLE can support the writing of new researchproposals and how they conduct future similar research (“why itworked or why it didn’t work” [CC1]), teaching and writing ofscientific publications, work as experts in other processes, theability to engage with emerging topics, like the role of GBI duringthe COVID-19 crisis (see Barton et al. 2020), or promoting furthercollaboration with local stakeholders.

Interviewees also reflected on the usefulness of knowledge forthemselves. Most answers referred to expanding one’s conceptualunderstanding or methodological toolbox, related to: the conceptof filters, “quite useful ... for the way you engage with the benefitsof green and blue infrastructure” [HAL2]; the framework (andassessment methods) of GBI availability, accessibility, andattractiveness; having “a more operational idea of the actual



design of transdisciplinary science, ... what are the critical thingsthat need to be integrated, how can they be integrated and howcan I describe how to do that and the resources needed” [STO1];a deeper understanding of preferences, values, and perceptionsof citizens concerning the design of green infrastructure; the Blue-Green Factor assessment; or thinking about “the beneficialoverlaps between different techniques and methods” [HAL2](→What). Expanding one’s conceptual understanding cansupport individuals in adapting mental models and promotedouble-loop learning (Fazey et al. 2005). These self-reflectionscan stimulate individual researchers to orient their work towardfavoring learning over knowing, which is one of the ways to helpbuild improved capacity for social learning in a sustainabilitycontext (Clark et al. 2016).

What to learn about? Different types of knowledgeThe most recurring topic emerging from the interviews regardingthis dimension was related to insights on working withstakeholders. These included (i) the benefits, challenges, andlimitations implied (“For the first time we were doing this exercisewith stakeholders ... and I think this is something that we learnedis very useful and that we would like to do in the future as well”[LOD1]; “I was reminded of the challenges of working withstakeholders, in terms of problem understanding, the time budgetand capacity in total” [HAL2]; “I see much more the limitationslinked to that and the bias that the selection of stakeholders bringswith it” [BAR1]); (ii) better understanding of stakeholders(“Knowing who the actors are, how they view the system, howthey think about other actors” [STO1]); (iii) how to better alignthe research with stakeholders’ needs (“Getting the research fromthe lab to the end-users and practitioners, that is definitely whatwe have learned a lot about” [BAR1]). These insights representtarget knowledge as well as “knowledge on how to createknowledge.” Related to the latter but also with systemsknowledge, another topic that emerged was learning on applyingdifferent methods to specific issues or contexts, which is closelyrelated to the scope and goals of the project (“How differentaspects can be studied using different research methods and howmanifold methods have been applied to different extents in thedifferent cities and also with different outcomes” [CC1]; see alsoAndersson et al. 2021). A third emerging topic that links withdifferent types of knowledge concerned governance issues with aspatial expression. In one case this had to do with a disconnectbetween the city-wide scale of planning and the problems atneighborhood scale (related to transformation knowledge andsystems knowledge). The other case concerned the surprisinglylarge impact of formal administrative boundaries in how peopletalk about values (more related to target knowledge).

The researchers gained further trans- and interdisciplinary“knowledge on how to create knowledge” through ENABLE.They learned new terms, which can act as boundary concepts(Opdam et al. 2015; →How). These were mainly the concept offilters (infrastructural, perceptual, institutional) mediating thebenefits flowing from GBI, put forward in ENABLE’s conceptualframework (see Andersson et al. 2019, 2021); flows (of benefits)and barriers, both closely associated with the filters (Wolff,Mascarenhas, Haase, et al., unpublished manuscript); and the triadof availability, accessibility, and attractiveness to or of GBI (seeBiernacka and Kronenberg 2019). Several interviewees stressedthat it was not so much about learning new terms per se, rather

trying to operationalize them and “having a deeper understandingof what the terms could mean” [STO1], particularly in thedifferent contexts of each case study city. This happened forexample with the concepts of environmental justice, nature-basedsolutions, sustainability, and resilience. In line with a processperspective of learning (Beers and van Mierlo 2017), severalinterviewees identified not only knowledge, ideas, insights, orperspectives as such, but referred to learning opportunities thatthe project offered them, often related with the conceptualapproaches and different methods that were applied in the project(→How). For example “approaching the green infrastructureplanning and the benefits of green infrastructure under aframework of resilience and environmental justice” [BAR2],“looking more in-depth into the mapping of preferences andvalues ... try and test and adjust the Q-methodology for the firsttime on our own” [CC1], or more generally “learning by doing,learning by mistakes in trying to develop tools for discussing thesethings along the way” [STO2]. The latter challenges the fear tofail, one of the most critical shortcomings that transdisciplinarysustainability research has to navigate (Lang et al. 2012).

Who to learn with? Diversity of perspectivesENABLE researchers engaged with various stakeholdersthroughout the project and drew different learning insights fromthat engagement. Because of the scope of ENABLE, focused onthe benefits flowing from GBI in urban areas, partners engagedmainly with local authorities, especially their planning,environmental, green space management or similar departments.Engaging with those stakeholders was seen as particularlybeneficial to learn about “what is going on in terms of policy”[BAR2], “how processes actually work, what are the realobstacles” [STO1], “the realities and challenges of planners”[BAR1]. Another type of stakeholder involved in several of thecase study cities were initiatives or organizations at very localscale, e.g., of the neighborhood. This was considered useful tolearn, for example, about the multiple perspectives of residents ina neighborhood facing several social challenges likeunemployment or poor integration of migrants [HAL2]. In somecases, stakeholders also included citizens in general, who were“there on their free time just because they cared about the areaor had a specific interest in the area” [STO2]. Engaging withstakeholders generally provided an opportunity for criticalreflection among the researchers and gaining a betterunderstanding of how to design participatory processes in atransdisciplinary research context (including insights onrequirements or different degrees of inclusiveness) or how to applymethods coming from research to specific contexts, “so that it isstill understandable and can also create meaningful results” [CC1](→What, →Why).

Interactions with colleagues within the project consortiumpromoted learning on a more abstract level. This includedconceptual development of aspects related to the ENABLEframework, like the notion of barriers (Wolff, Mascarenhas,Haase, et al., unpublished manuscript), learning how to conductintegrated research or work with different epistemologies,ontologies, and different researchers’ backgrounds, or stimulatingreflexivity to extract lessons from what worked or not in each city(see Andersson et al. 2021). Learning also took place throughdiscussions with other scientists, e.g., in conferences or case studyworkshops, where insights and experiences from ENABLE can



be compared with those from similar projects [STO1] (→What).This provides support to the notion that mutual learning amongthe researchers during a research process needs to be activelyestablished and learning processes beyond the boundaries ofindividual projects must take place for a comprehensiveembedding of the own case and contributing to extant knowledge(Lang et al. 2012).

Interviewees identified stakeholders who could have beenbeneficial to the learning process, but who were not engaged.Private actors were mentioned several times, for example,“stakeholders from private housing companies ... who actuallyhave quite decisive impact on GBI benefits” [HAL2]. Politicianswere noted as a type of stakeholder with similarly high influence.Difficult-to-reach stakeholders were also mentioned, namelymarginalized groups representing a specific kind of GBI userswho influence “the functionality and perceptions of green andblue infrastructure” [STO1]. Other stakeholders includedgrassroots groups or neighborhood associations, as well as thegeneral public, which included people who might be engaged insocietal issues but not necessarily through organized groups.Insufficient contact with stakeholders (mainly decision makersand practitioners) from case study cities other than one’s own wasalso noted. Related with this, “also maybe direct interactionbetween cities could be beneficial for the project” [LOD2].Engaging with other projects running under the same fundingscheme was also seen as potentially beneficial, “to exchange, seewhat is their research focus and if there may be some overlaps orsimilarities” [CC1].

How to learn? Framings, boundary concepts, and third placesThe project partners promoted a variety of events oropportunities to foster learning within ENABLE. Across casestudies, this included workshops with local stakeholders,participation in expert groups, thematic meetings with individualstakeholders, or training events. Additionally, consortiumworkshops in each case study city brought together the projectpartners, allowing them to internally discuss different aspects ofthe project (including self-reflections on the transdisciplinaryprocess itself), as well as getting to know each case study betterthrough field trips and direct interactions with local stakeholders.

Common across case study cities was an effort to meet projectneeds through the events and learning opportunities promoted,while aligning them with ongoing “real” local GBI planning andmanagement processes and challenges for the planning andmanagement of GBI (→When, →Why). This has guided theframing of each event and the choice of appropriate boundaryconcepts, around which to focus discussions. For example, inBarcelona the concept of nature-based solutions (linked to GBI)served as an overarching boundary concept. Then, each event wasframed around specific topics related to it, such as the evaluationof effective green roof strategies (Langemeyer et al. 2020) or theresilient flow of ES (De Luca et al. 2021). In Stockholm, aresilience assessment process provided an overarching framing,with each event serving as a stepping stone in the process(Borgström et al. 2021). Researchers there made an effort to “finda language and commonalities, common boundary objects to talkabout. We’ve had to work very hard to find something that theycould start their dialogue about” [STO2]. They also conducted“constant framing exercises that we had to do to explain what we

were doing and also for us to learn about the system. The framingwas everything from writing invitations, writing documentation,having the first presentation at all the workshops that we had ...all these meetings have a very careful thinking about how we startthem, how we talked about the system that we wanted to discusswith the actors. So using words that we know that they knowabout but also then linking them to the conceptual frameworkwithin the project, that was a very tricky part” [STO2]. The Oslocase offered an example of another kind of approach. There, theleading ENABLE researcher engaged with ongoing processes asa member of expert groups.

These sorts of collaborative approaches can promote a genuinebridging of research and practice, hence addressing a criticalchallenge for knowledge exchange, that of providing access toresearch knowledge in ways that meet stakeholders’ needs andconstraints (Hurley et al. 2016), and enhancing knowledgeutilization (Hoffmann et al. 2019). This is aligned with the notionof problem solving organized around a particular application, anattribute of transdisciplinary knowledge production (Gibbons etal. 1994). Framing issues persuasively is an integral part ofresponding to policy windows, increasing the chances that theresearch is taken up by policy (Rose et al. 2020). Boundaryconcepts such as the ones described here can help finding sharedinterests and bridge understanding across multiple knowledgedomains (Opdam et al. 2015, Roux et al. 2017).

Across different framings, goals, and formats, several intervieweesstressed the fact that the events described here promoted learningboth for researchers and other stakeholders (“It’s also learningfor us, because we always use these forums for giving keystakeholders the opportunity to present and discuss their work ...There’s also a learning process in two directions” [BAR1]; “wehad a nice exchange [with a local stakeholder], which I wouldcount as a learning event for both sides. For us as researchers aswell as the local stakeholders” [HAL2] (→Who). This illustratesthe efforts from ENABLE partners in promoting third places(Roux et al. 2017), and is aligned with the notion thatcollaboration between individuals is needed to gain a fullerunderstanding of dynamic social-ecological systems (Olsson etal. 2004, Fazey et al. 2005). In an urban planning context like theone in ENABLE, planning practice benefits from newperspectives and improved understanding of problems andsolutions from research, while research benefits from beinginformed by practice problems and practical knowledge (Hurleyet al. 2016). This also helps building informal and formal linkagesbetween the project team and other stakeholders, which can playa key role in enhancing the use of knowledge coming from theproject (Hoffmann et al. 2019).

When to learn? Key stages, temporal alignmentThe most relevant topic emerging from the interviews, related withthis dimension, was the temporal alignment of the researchproject with ongoing processes in each case study city, in order tomaximize the relevance of the former to the latter (→How). Thisshows recognition that timing influences both the extent to whichresearch findings are likely to be perceived as relevant by decisionmakers, and the way that knowledge from research is used in thedecision-making process (Reed et al. 2014), aligned with thenotion of “policy windows” (Rose et al. 2020). It played a relevantrole to guide the “research design and selection of methods” (one



of the key stages introduced in the analytical framework), and itseemed to play a bigger role in the cases where stakeholderengagement was more extensive. For example, in Barcelona, withstakeholder workshops taking place around three times a year,the topics of the meetings varied “depending on the needs of theproject at some point, at the same time we try also to talk abouttopics that are relevant for the stakeholders” [BAR2]. However,aligning project and others’ timelines involved some trade-offs:“At times the two timelines did not align too smoothly, so we triedto bring in ENABLE inputs at specific times that we thought wererelevant. So trying to address different stakeholders’ needs anddesires in terms of outcomes, which has sometimes maybedetracted from the more pedagogical design of the process”[STO1].

The time preceding the project’s beginning often played animportant role for aligning the project with the needs and interestsof local stakeholders, thereby increasing its relevance. In mostcases, ENABLE was part of broader, pre-existing processesinvolving the researchers and local stakeholders. There were alsoconsultations with stakeholders in the project’s preparation phase,“about their needs, what are the priority questions, what are thekey topics they want to work on through this process and alsothinking about key areas in the city for interventions” [BAR1].This kind of setting the scene and determining what was relevantfor the city was seen as a “critical phase” and “a very usefulapproach in making the entire stakeholder engagement processworth the effort for the stakeholders” [BAR1] (→Why, →How).This illustrates the key stage of “problem identification andstructuring” (Pohl and Hadorn 2007, Enengel et al. 2012), beinganalogous to the “problem transformation” process, the firstphase in Jahn et al.’s model of an ideal transdisciplinary researchprocess, whereby societal and scientific problems are linked toform a common research object (Jahn et al. 2012).

The time following stakeholder engagement events was alsostressed, particularly in the Barcelona and Stockholm cases, asimportant to contact stakeholders, requesting feedback fromthem, and for focused internal reflection: “We test our ideas andapproaches with the stakeholders in the individual meetings. Andthen we have the reporting back phase, where we presented resultsto the stakeholders and asked for additional feedback. Dependingon the study this is more or less intensive” [BAR1] (→What,→How). This is more related with the stages of “data analysisand triangulation,” “reflection/interpretation and synthesis” orassessing new knowledge, and also “dissemination of results/newknowledge” (Pohl and Hadorn 2007, Enengel et al. 2012,Hoffmann et al. 2019). The two latter stages were also the mainfocus of stakeholder workshops organized across cities, towardthe end of the project.

Cross-cutting topic: barriers to learningSeveral barriers to learning within the project have been pointedout. Concerning interactions between the project team and otherstakeholders, barriers included the following: different “culturesof participation” and different starting points across cities (insome cities, there were previous collaborations between theENABLE researchers and local stakeholders, in others not, orthe general willingness to participate was low); reachingstakeholders “who do not see themselves as stakeholders” [STO1];conflicts in scheduling, particularly relevant for stakeholders like

grassroots groups, neighborhood associations, or NGOs(→Who); ENABLE’s level of abstraction, making it hard forstakeholders to grasp its conceptual framework and demandingextra effort to make it more concrete through illustrativeexamples. Some stakeholders who could have been beneficial tothe learning process were not engaged (→Who). Reasons includedchanges in personnel within local organizations, which demandrenewing contacts and rebuilding trust with researchers, bad orunwanted relationships between researchers and stakeholders,issues of trust among stakeholders (“If you involve people withvery strong and very different opinions ... it could take a long timejust to find common ground and start to build trust” [STO1]),lack of time from stakeholders like politicians or businesses, anddifferent schedules (e.g., between stakeholders participating on aprofessional vs. voluntary basis). In this respect, one intervieweenoted that “[w]e do have a gap in cooperating with stakeholdersfrom the private sector, that would be in theory and in practice Iam not really sure if that would have been helpful for thisstakeholder process to learn more. Obviously we could havelearned different things, but probably we would have missed outothers” [BAR1]. This reflects the need to consider the best form,level, and scale of participation, tailored to the research topic andthe preferences and capacities of different stakeholders, insteadof assuming that more participation is always better (Enengel etal. 2012, Lang et al. 2012).

Within the consortium, the parallel evolution of a commontheoretical framework during the project was thought to havenegative implications for the design and integration of empiricalmethods. A similar issue has been experienced by other authors,for example, in the context of transdisciplinary synthesis projects(Hoffmann et al. 2017). The level of consistency between casestudies was often mentioned as not satisfactory. There was thefeeling that different teams were working using differentapproaches “and because of this the opportunities for mutuallearning are not as big as they could have been had everyoneworked on much more similar things” [LOD1], or if there hadbeen “a more joint comparative analysis” [LOD2]. For oneinterviewee there was a tension between trying to understand thesystem and then also adding the aspects of change. There was afocus on the former, which left the researchers with little capacityto address the latter. Finally, time and resource constraints (bothfrom researchers and other stakeholders) were also seen as abarrier. We hypothesize that the barriers described here can beassociated with the explorative nature of the project, and thedifferent research teams iteratively working toward a jointunderstanding of it, making the end goal less clear.

Difficulties related to the use of terms or jargon, includingdifferent interpretations thereof, also posed a barrier to learning,mainly within the consortium, but also in engaging withstakeholders. “Sometimes we managed to reach some sort ofconsensus, in other cases we just had to step back and leave thedifferences where they were” [STO1]. The triad of GBIavailability, accessibility, and attractiveness was mentioned mostoften. Some partners struggled with the exact definition of eachone of those concepts and to some extent different teams usedthe concepts differently, posing a challenge when it came to cross-case integration. Similar issues of coherence in interpretation werenoted for the concepts of perceptions, institutions, governance,or justice. These are known communicative integration challenges



in transdisciplinary research (Lang et al. 2012). Regardingpossible reasons underlying such difficulties, not putting enougheffort into discussing terminology and differences in how differentpeople express their ideas was mentioned. One partner who worksin applied research felt there was an overload of complextheoretical terms. In relation to stakeholder engagement, thelanguage also needed adjustments according to stakeholders’backgrounds. For example, in Barcelona, stakeholders wereconcerned about the concept of nature-based solutions, becausethey were more familiar with the concepts of ecosystem servicesor environmental services and green infrastructure. Although thedifficulties described above posed barriers to learning, discussionson finding common ground for definitions were “particularlyinsightful for all” [LOD1] and they have resulted in “a deeperunderstanding of what the terms could mean” [STO1]. This is apositive learning outcome and is aligned with the idea that a“learning zone” can emerge out of a situation of discomfort(beyond the comfort zone), as conceptualized by Freeth andCaniglia (2020). Establishing some kind of a common languagethat advances mutual understanding and agreement also supportsintegration in transdisciplinary research (Jahn et al. 2012).

It is also useful to identify unmet expectations and the reasonsbehind them. In ENABLE’s learning process these were mainlyrelated to four issues:

(i) Several interviewees were expecting more comparative work(using joint approaches like common scenario development) tobe conducted during the project than it did. Reasons for thisincluded the constellation of disciplines and expertise in theproject, different interests across research partners, or the need tobe pragmatic in face of the existing amount of work. This providesan alternative expression of the concern that “transdisciplinarysettings allow for mutual learning but not for joint research”(Maasen and Lieven 2006:406);

(ii) The balance between a more theoretical or empiricalapproach. Whereas one researcher thought that ENABLE rantoo much as a scientific project, thereby missing more contactwith stakeholders from other cities to learn “from those who dealwith realities” [LOD2], another researcher would have wanted“more in-depth discussion on how do we best connect methods,theories, frameworks” [STO1]. This mirrors the two contrastingapproaches to transdisciplinarity found in the literature: a life-world approach vs. an inner-scientific approach (Jahn et al. 2012),which are linked with a tension between local or context-specificknowledge vs. generalized knowledge (Raymond et al. 2010,Enengel et al. 2012). Hoffmann et al. (2019) regard these as twoprocesses of knowledge production, which transdisciplinaryresearch processes strive to combine: a societal one, wherestakeholders address a particular sustainability problem, and ascientific one, where researchers develop research on thatparticular problem;

(iii) Not being able to conduct some analyses, or at least reachingas far as desired. This was noted, for example, for system andagent-based modeling, as “data gathering was so hard” [HAL1],or learning about justice and resilience together, which was notentirely possible, because “it has been so much work just to linkgreen-blue infrastructure just to these two dimensions” [STO2].Related with this, one interviewee noted that possibly researchers

have tried to address too many topics and that “we might havegotten further if we focused on fewer issues” [OSL1];

(iv) There were difficulties in implementing a planned mobilityscheme for young researchers across the cities. This was seen bysome as a missed opportunity because it “is a very fruitful way oflearning and understanding and exchange” [STO2]. It is a veryconcrete example of an effort to foster conditions for collaborativelearning, in line with suggestions by Freeth and Caniglia (2020).One interviewee noted that expectations have changed severaltimes over the course of the project, which is not necessarilynegative, as illustrated by the Barcelona case, where most of thestudies conducted were carried out as they emerged as relevantduring the project’s lifetime.

Cross-cutting topic: role of contextThe role of context, in a project like ENABLE analyzing realcomplex urban social-ecological systems, became apparent inseveral responses. Different cities are in different stages in termsof capacities, existing data, and knowledge. The starting point ineach city determines to a smaller or greater extent how far onecan go in terms of testing new ideas or approaches. “Maybeecosystem services and green infrastructure are two examples forthat: Barcelona has incorporated that already, other cities havenot, so if you now come up with new concepts and you elaboratefurther on this, but the baseline is not given to work with theseconcepts, then obviously that is much more difficult” [BAR1]. Asanother interviewee put it, “I would love to be advanced but firstI need to have a basic database” [LOD2]. There are also differentcultures of participation shaped by the levels of trust and interestin such participatory processes. This became apparent whencomparing the stakeholder engagement that took place forexample in the Nordic cities (Oslo, Stockholm) represented in theproject and in post-socialist cities (Halle, Łódź). Other contextualfactors inherent to stakeholders, like cultural differences, e.g.,different languages, or different interests, had to be dealt withwhen engaging with them. Political changes or changes inpersonnel within stakeholder organizations, like local authorities,can imply contextual changes in perspectives or attitudes anddemand building new relationships between project researchersand other stakeholders. Even among project researchers, “yourpersonal background and legacies play a role how you see thingsand how you understand progress, conflicts, dependence,weakness, success,” so that it becomes relevant “to see howprevious learning shapes recent learning” [HAL1]. These insightscorroborate the notion that “[t]ransdisciplinarity is a context-specific negotiation” (Klein 2004:521)

Study’s limitations and strengthsA relevant limitation of our application was the inclusion of onlythe consortium partners, or core scientists (Enengel et al. 2012).Including the views of other stakeholders involved in the projectwould allow us to assess the learning process morecomprehensively. It would also contribute to our approach’sability to, at least partly, assess social learning, a change inunderstanding in the individuals involved, and how did theprocess occur through social interactions and processes betweenactors within a social network (Reed et al. 2010). However, thiswas not possible for practical reasons. In Appendix 1 we providethe interview protocol developed specifically for that purpose, forfuture applications.



The double role of the co-authors also as researchers in theENABLE project demands some clarification and reflection. Thefirst author was part of the research team leading the case studyfor the city of Halle (Saale) in Germany. This allowed him to bemore actively involved in, and consequently gain deeper insightsabout, the project activities taking place in that city, than for theremaining case studies. However, he took more of a secondaryrole in his involvement on most of the activities specific to theHalle case study, allowing for a rather more distanced perspective.Nevertheless, it is impossible to equate this to a situation wherethe first author would be external to a specific case study or evento the whole project consortium. In principle that would allowfor a more distanced perspective, but it could also carrydisadvantages with it, most notably a lower level of trust betweeninterviewer and interviewees, with negative impact on the (qualityof) information given by interviewees or on their willingness tobe interviewed at all by someone external to the project. Awareof the limitations inherent to this study’s context, we took someprecautions. The first author strove to draw his analysis solelyfrom the material resulting from the interviews. He also wrote thedraft manuscript of the article, while the remaining co-authorscontributed at a later stage and were not involved in processinginterview data. This was important because they were alsointerviewed for the study. By appending the coded interviewtranscripts to the article (Appendix 3), we also give readers theopportunity to make their own judgments on our findings andclaims, in face of the underlying data.

The analytical framework developed in this research proved usefulto us for capturing the learning process. It enables a broaderanalysis than each one of the frameworks adapted for itsdevelopment (Enengel et al. 2012, Hoffmann et al. 2017, Roux etal. 2017) because it covers more dimensions. For example,“including the ‘who’ and ‘when’ may lead to a more sophisticatedconceptualization of knowledge that goes beyond simplycategorizing different types of knowledge and instead emphasisesknowledge as more as a process that can be modelled” (Evely etal. 2012:7, unpublished manuscript). Also, the questions developedto guide the interviews have elicited from the interviewees theinformation needed to operationalize the framework. We arguethat our approach can be useful for future transdisciplinaryresearch projects with similar scope and in different geographiccontexts, not only for ex post analysis as we did, but also ex ante,to consider the different aspects of the learning process exploredhere at a planning stage. As one interviewee put it: “One thingthat could be very beneficial for us researchers who are aiming atthese very complex research and knowledge processes is to findtools for ourselves to capture this, like having this interview gotme thinking about things that I would not necessarily have timeor room or acknowledged that I would need to reflect upon.Because if I have that self-reflexive routine that would make thistransfer of experiences and insights between projects andprocesses more clear and visible for me and maybe for others aswell” [STO2]. This statement is aligned with the notion thatlearning outcomes may lead to increased reflexivity, but they canalso result from reflexivity changes (Beers and van Mierlo 2017).Applying our approach in other projects would allow gatheringadditional empirical data to build a more robust body of evidenceregarding the findings of this exploratory research.

Whereas the analytical framework supporting our analysis canbe used in different stages of a learning process, the interviewprotocol we developed to operationalize the framework is suitablefor an ex post analysis. Nevertheless, we acknowledge theimportance of continuous reflexivity throughout transdisciplinaryresearch efforts (Polk and Knutsson 2008, Lang et al. 2012). Inthe ENABLE project, this was pursued in different ways, forexample in meetings among case study teams, or through timeslots in project workshops dedicated to joint reflection. However,reporting on the whole reflection process is beyond the scope ofthis article.

Fostering a learning process within transdisciplinary researchprojects: take-home messagesInterviewees have reflected on what were the main take-homemessages from the project. Based on their answers and furtherreflection among the authors, we present a set of lessons learned,aiming to support future similar transdisciplinary researchprojects. Regarding their validity, we acknowledge theexploratory nature of this research. Nevertheless, one should notethat transdisciplinarity is “problem solving capability on themove,” so it is hard to predict “where this knowledge will be usednext and how it will develop” (Gibbons et al. 1994:13). Thefollowing emerged as main lessons learned (clustered around sixthemes), which can be helpful for future similar initiatives. Withthese take-home messages we aim at supporting similar efforts:

1. Capitalizing on what already exists: (a) Assess what sort ofsystematic learning can be gained from already existing dataand knowledge, e.g., feeding it into dynamic models, beforecollecting new data. There is often the tendency to add moredata rather than learn from what already exists. (b) Takeadvantage of opportunities to engage with ongoing policy-related processes, instead of designing stakeholderengagement processes from scratch that do not have a policy-driven purpose or relevance.

2. Addressing trade-offs inherent to different types ofknowledge: (a) Find a balance between addressing localstakeholders’ concerns and conducting comparativeresearch. Transdisciplinary urban research should berelevant for stakeholders, building on their needs if it is tobe impactful. Nevertheless, comparing problems acrosscities helps put the magnitude of local problems inperspective and in context, and sorting out priorities. It alsohelps thinking about future scenarios, because one can seealternative states that a given city could be in. Approachingdifferent case studies with a common approach isparticularly useful for learning among scientists. These goalscan be achieved for example by establishing cross-caseworking groups targeting specific sets of issues andpromoting interactions between researchers and localstakeholders from other cities. Being part of a multi-cityendeavor can also leverage stakeholder engagement (higherwillingness to participate if people know the same effort isbeing conducted in other cities, especially “model”/frontrunner cities. (b) Take into account the important roleof context in real complex urban social-ecological systems.This relates to the previous point and is particularly relevantwhen trying to draw more general insights from differentcase studies.



3. Fostering inter- and transdisciplinarity: (a) For integratedresearch running in multiple case studies, promote acontinuous (as possible) dialogue between the differentresearch teams. In ENABLE, conducting a deeply integratedtransdisciplinary project over a dispersed network provedchallenging in this regard. Having a mobility scheme inplace, which allows extended stays from researchers inpartner organizations, might be helpful. ENABLE had sucha scheme but it was not fully realized, so reflecting on itspotential was part of the learning process. (b) Embracedifferent views, expectations, the variety of knowledgepeople have, and the way they use this knowledge. Acceptthat there are multiple possible pathways toward a certaindesirable state or goal. This might require stepping out ofone’s comfort zone, e.g., in terms of one’s academicbackground, which can be useful to stimulate learning ininterdisciplinary collaborative research (Freeth and Caniglia2020). Paying attention to how one frames issues andlooking for ways to find a common ground can prove usefulto deal with such differences. This demands being aware ofand assuming certain researcher roles, like that of a processfacilitator (facilitating the learning process), knowledgebroker (mediating between different perspectives), or self-reflexive scientist (being reflexive about one’s positionalityand normativity, as part of the system or process understudy; Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014). (c) Assign differentroles within the team promoting the learning process. Thiscan enable different team members to have differentperspectives on the same process. This requires the respectivehuman resources, for example, one person will in most casesnot be enough to cover all the different needs of the process,like facilitating and being an observer. Constant reflectionon researchers’ roles is also advisable; see previous point andWittmayer and Schäpke (2014) for additional roles.

4. Engaging stakeholders: (a) Consider the pros and cons ofdifferent stakeholder engagement formats when designingthe engagement process. For example, smaller focus groupsbring less perspectives together than a larger stakeholderworkshop, but they can create a safer space for discussionamong stakeholders, while they can also free the researchersfrom other roles (like being more a facilitator), with benefitsfor the learning process in both cases. A mix of differentformats in different stages of the project, targeting specificobjectives, can be most useful for the learning process.Choosing the best mix should take into account the distinctinterests, roles, and practices of communication brought bystakeholders. (b) Accept that virtually no one participatoryprocess is perfect. Every project has its limitations, leadingto trade-offs in terms of who is involved and what is learned.It might not always be needed and suitable to involvestakeholders in all phases of the project, because differentstakeholders contribute differently to different stages of theresearch process. Participation is shaped by the research aimsand should consider stakeholders’ values, preferences,interests, power levels, or constraints. (c) Be explicit aboutwhat is on the agenda in terms of stakeholders or processesexerting pressure on GBI, underlying conflicts, or factorshindering research or initiatives to promote GBI.

5. Supporting a learning environment: (a) Promoteexploration and researchers’ own learning within the

research team. This was seen as a very positive experiencefrom ENABLE because of its flexibility, and as somethingthat is not taken for granted, when compared to otherprojects with a more rigid approach. (b) Acknowledge thatdifferent kinds of learning opportunities can be importantto foster learning, each contributing with its own benefits tothe whole learning experience. ENABLE researchersidentified various activities in this regard, for example, thewriting of scientific articles as an interdisciplinary learningprocess, internal workshops providing a safe-to-failenvironment, or workshops in other case study cities givinginsight into other contexts. (c) Encourage learning alsobeyond the boundaries of the project. Strive for sharing theproject’s products and knowledge with stakeholders atdifferent levels, enabling a sustained communicationchannel between the researchers and other stakeholders. (d)Acknowledge the importance of failure in both process andoutcomes. Analyzing non-success can reveal the weak pointsof a system, which can put it onto an undesired pathway.Reflecting on failing efforts can be insightful not only forthe internal learning process but also for others to avoidmaking the same mistakes. In ENABLE, having safe-to-failopportunities was seen as beneficial for learning, in line withthe notion that a “learning zone” can emerge by goingbeyond an understimulating comfort zone (Freeth andCaniglia 2020).

6. Fostering reflexivity: Develop tools and routines to capturethe learning process taking place in the project. Having aself-reflexive routine can facilitate the transfer ofexperiences and insights between projects and processes.Several ENABLE researchers found the exercise reported inthis article as useful, to trigger thinking about issues forwhich they would not necessarily have the time oracknowledged they would need to reflect upon.

CONCLUSIONOur analytical framework for capturing the learning processtaking place in transdisciplinary research projects covers differentdimensions of the learning process (Why, What, Who, How,When). It draws inspiration from and expands existing similarframeworks, and has been operationalized through an interviewprotocol across five European urban regions. The frameworkhelped us distill a set of recommendations for future similartransdisciplinary research projects. These include capitalizing onwhat already exists, addressing trade-offs inherent to differenttypes of knowledge, fostering inter- and transdisciplinarity,engaging stakeholders, supporting a learning environment, andfostering reflexivity. More generally, the case application alsoprovided empirical insights for each of the framework’sdimensions, and identified cross-cutting issues concerningbarriers to learning and the role of context. Further research isneeded to test and develop the framework’s applicability for morediverse groups of stakeholders; the case only drew on theexperiences of the researchers in the project consortium. Finally,while ours was an ex post application, the framework can also beused ex ante to plan transdisciplinary projects that enhancelearning in its multiple dimensions, and throughout projects toidentify and engage with barriers to learning and make best useof evolving insights.



Responses to this article can be read online at: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.php/12631

Acknowledgments:

We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for theirconstructive comments on an earlier version of this article. We alsothank the colleagues who have given their time for the interviewssupporting this research. This research was funded through the2015-2016 BiodivERsA COFUND call for research proposals, withthe national funders the Swedish Research Council for Environment,Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning; Swedish EnvironmentalProtection Agency; German Aerospace Center (DLR); NationalScience Centre (Poland); the Research Council of Norway; andthe Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. Weacknowledge support by the German Research Foundation (DFG)and the Open Access Publication Fund of Humboldt-Universität zuBerlin.

Data Availability:

The data supporting the findings of this study are available asappendix to the article.

LITERATURE CITEDAndersson, E., S. Borgström, D. Haase, J. Langemeyer, A.Mascarenhas, T. McPhearson, M. Wolff, E. Łaszkiewicz, J.Kronenberg, D. N. Barton, and P. Herreros-Cantis. 2021. Acontext-sensitive systems approach for understanding andenabling ecosystem service realization in cities. Ecology andSociety 26(2):35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12411-260235

Andersson, E., S. Borgström, D. Haase, J. Langemeyer, M. Wolffand T. McPhearson. In press. Urban resilience thinking inpractice: ensuring flows of benefit from green and blueinfrastructure. Ecology and Society.

Andersson, E., J. Langemeyer, S. Borgström, T. McPhearson, D.Haase, J. Kronenberg, D. N. Barton, M. Davis, S. Naumann, L.Röschel, and F. Baró. 2019. Enabling green and blueinfrastructure to improve contributions to human well-being andequity in urban systems. BioScience 69(7):566-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058

Barton, D., D. Haase, A. Mascarenhas, J. Langemeyer, F. Baro,C. Kennedy, Z. Grabowski, T. McPhearson, N. Hjertager Krog,Z. Venter, and V. Gundersen. 2020. Enabling access to greenspaceduring the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from five cities. TheNature of Cities, 4 May. https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2020/05/04/enabling-access-to-greenspace-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-perspectives-from-five-cities

Beers, P. J., and B. van Mierlo. 2017. Reflexivity and learning insystem innovation processes. Sociologia Ruralis 57(3):415-436.https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12179

Biernacka, M., and J. Kronenberg. 2019. Urban green spaceavailability, accessibility and attractiveness, and the delivery ofecosystem services. Cities and the Environment (CATE) 12(1):5.

Borgström, S., E. Andersson, and T. Björklund. 2021. Retainingmulti-functionality in a rapidly changing urban landscape:insights from a participatory, resilience thinking process inStockholm, Sweden. Ecology and Society 26(4):17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12432-260417

Brandt, P., A. Ernst, F. Gralla, C. Luederitz, D. J. Lang, J. Newig,F. Reinert, D. J. Abson, and H. von Wehrden. 2013. A review oftransdisciplinary research in sustainability science. EcologicalEconomics 92:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Cash, D. W., W. C. Clark, F. Alcock, N. M. Dickson, N. Eckley,D. H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R. B. Mitchell. 2003. Knowledgesystems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 100(14):8086-8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100

Clark, W. C., L. Van Kerkhoff, L. Lebel, and G. C. Gallopin.2016. Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 113(17):4570-4578. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113

Cvitanovic, C., J. McDonald, and A. J. Hobday. 2016. Fromscience to action: principles for undertaking environmentalresearch that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-baseddecision-making. Journal of Environmental Management183:864-874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038

De Luca, C., J. Langemeyer, S. Vaňo, F. Baró, and E. Andersson.2021. Adaptive resilience of and through urban ecosystemservices: a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability inBarcelona. Ecology and Society Vol. 26 Iss. 4 in press.

Dunford, R., P. Harrison, A. Smith, J. Dick, D. N. Barton, B.Martin-Lopez, E. Kelemen, S. Jacobs, H. Saarikoski, F.Turkelboom, W. Verheyden, J. Hauck, P. Antunes, R. Aszalós, O.Badea, F. Baró, P. Berry, L. Carvalho, G. Conte, B. Czúcz, G.Garcia Blanco, D. Howard, R. Giuca, E. Gomez-Baggethun, B.Grizzetti, Z. Izakovicova, L. Kopperoinen, J. Langemeyer, S.Luque, D. M. Lapola, G. Martinez-Pastur, R. Mukhopadhyay, S.B. Roy, J. Niemelä, L. Norton, J. Ochieng, D. Odee, I. Palomo, P.Pinho, J. Priess, G. Rusch, S.-R. Saarela, R. Santos, J. T. van derWal, A. Vadineanu, Á. Vári, H. Woods, and V. Yli-Pelkonen. 2018.Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment:experiences from real world situations. Ecosystem Services29:499-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014

Enengel, B., A. Muhar, M. Penker, B. Freyer, S. Drlik, and F.Ritter. 2012. Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinarydoctoral theses on landscape development - an analysis of actorroles and knowledge types in different research phases. Landscapeand Urban Planning 105(1-2):106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.004

Fazey, I., J. A. Fazey, and D. M. A. Fazey. 2005. Learning moreeffectively from experience. Ecology and Society 10(2):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01384-100204

Freeth, R., and G. Caniglia. 2020. Learning to collaborate whilecollaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research.Sustainability Science 15(1):247-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z


https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.php/12631

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.php/12631

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12411-260235

https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058

https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz058

https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2020/05/04/enabling-access-to-greenspace-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-perspectives-from-five-cities



https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12179

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12432-260417

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12432-260417

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.014

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.004

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01384-100204

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01384-100204

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00701-z


Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott,and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge : thedynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.SAGE, London, UK.

Hadorn, G. H., S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, H.Hoffmann-Riem, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U. Wiesmann, and E. Zemp.2008. The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research.Pages 19-39 in G. H. Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, U.Wiesmann, and E. Zemp, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinaryresearch. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_2

Hoffmann, S., C. Pohl, and J. G. Hering. 2017. Exploringtransdisciplinary integration within a large research program:empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes.Research Policy 46(3):678-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

Hoffmann, S., J. Thompson Klein, and C. Pohl. 2019. Linkingtransdisciplinary research projects with science and practice atlarge: introducing insights from knowledge utilization.Environmental Science and Policy 102:36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.011

Horvath, P., D. N. Barton, E. A. Hauglin, and H. W. Ellefsen.2017. Blue-green factor (BGF) mapping in QGIS. User Guideand Documentation. NINA Report 1445. Norwegian Institutefor Nature Research, Oslo, Norway.

Hurley, J., C. W. Lamker, E. J. Taylor, D. Stead, M. Hellmich, L.Lange, H. Rowe, S. Beeck, P. Phibbs, and A. Forsyth. 2016.Exchange between researchers and practitioners in urbanplanning: achievable objective or a bridge too far?/The use ofacademic research in planning practice: who, what, where, whenand how?/Bridging research and practice through collaboration:lessons from a joint working group/Getting the relationshipbetween researchers and practitioners working/Art and urbanplanning: stimulating researcher, practitioner and communityengagement/Collaboration between researchers and practitioners:Political and bureaucratic issues/Investigating Research/Conclusion: Breaking down barriers through internationalpractice?. Planning Theory and Practice 17(3):447-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1190491

Jahn, T., M. Bergmann, and F. Keil. 2012. Transdisciplinarity:between mainstreaming and marginalization. EcologicalEconomics 79:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

Klein, J. T. 2004. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4):515-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007

Kuckartz, U., and S. Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing qualitative datawith MAXQDA. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens,P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinaryresearch in sustainability science: practice, principles, andchallenges. Sustainability Science 7(1):25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Langemeyer, J., and J. J. T. Connolly. 2020. Weaving notions ofjustice into urban ecosystem services research and practice.

Environmental Science & Policy 109:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.03.021

Langemeyer, J., D. Wedgwood, T. McPhearson, F. Baró, A. L.Madsen, and D. N. Barton. 2020. Creating urban greeninfrastructure where it is needed - a spatial ecosystem service-based decision analysis of green roofs in Barcelona. Science ofThe Total Environment 707:135487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487

Łaszkiewicz, E., P. Czembrowski, and J. Kronenberg. 2020.Creating a map of the social functions of urban green spaces ina city with poor availability of spatial data: a sociotope for Lodz.Land 9:183. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9060183

Maasen, S., and O. Lieven. 2006. Transdisciplinarity: a new modeof governing science? Science and Public Policy 33(6):399-410.https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778803

Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagementfor building resilience in social-ecological systems. EnvironmentalManagement 34(1):75-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7

Opdam, P., J. Westerink, C. Vos, and B. de Vries. 2015. The roleand evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinarylandscape planning. Planning Theory and Practice 16(1):63-78.https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.997786

Pohl, C., and G. H. Hadorn. 2007. Principles for designingtransdisciplinary research. oekom, Munich, Germany. https://doi.org/10.14512/9783962388638

Polk, M., and P. Knutsson. 2008. Participation, value rationalityand mutual learning in transdisciplinary knowledge productionfor sustainable development. Environmental Education Research14(6):643-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802464841

Posner, S. M., E. McKenzie, and T. H. Ricketts. 2016. Policyimpacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America113(7):1760-1765. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502452113

Raymond, C. M., I. Fazey, M. S. Reed, L. C. Stringer, G. M.Robinson, and A. C. Evely. 2010. Integrating local and scientificknowledge for environmental management. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 91(8):1766-1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023

Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmentalmanagement: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10):2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing,J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer.2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4):r1.https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03564-1504r01

Reed, M. S., L. C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A. C. Evely, and J. H. J.Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledgeexchange in environmental management. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 146:337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021

Restrepo, M. J., M. A. Lelea, and B. A. Kaufmann. 2018.Evaluating knowledge integration and co-production in a 2-yearcollaborative learning process with smallholder dairy farmer

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_2

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.011


https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1190491

https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1190491

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135487

https://doi.org/10.3390/land9060183

https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778803

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7

https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.997786

https://doi.org/10.14512/9783962388638

https://doi.org/10.14512/9783962388638

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802464841




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03564-1504r01




groups. Sustainability Science 13(5):1265-1286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0553-6

Ritter, F., A. Muhar, and M. Fiebig. 2010. TransdisziplinärerDialog : Fachwissen und Erfahrungswissen im Austausch überSommer-Bergtourismus und Klimawandel [Transdisciplinarydialogue: expert and experiential knowledge in a discourse onsummer mountain tourism and climate Change]. GAIA -Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 19(3):194-203.https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.3.9

Rose, D. C., N. Mukherjee, B. I. Simmons, E. R. Tew, R. J.Robertson, A. B. M. Vadrot, R. Doubleday, and W. J. Sutherland.2020. Policy windows for the environment: tips for improving theuptake of scientific knowledge. Environmental Science and Policy113:47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.013

Roux, D. J., J. L. Nel, G. Cundill, P. O‛Farrell, and C. Fabricius.2017. Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learnwith, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustainability Science12(5):711-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

Scholz, R. W. 2001. The Mutual learning sessions. Pages 117-129in J. T. Klein, R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, A. Bill, and M. Welti, editors. Transdisciplinarity: jointproblem solving among science, technology, and society: aneffective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel,Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_11

Serrat, O. 2017. Knowledge solutions: tools, methods, andapproaches to drive organizational performance. Springer,Singapore.

Tuinstra, W., E. Turnhout, and W. Halffman. 2019. Usableknowledge. Pages 126-140 in E. Turnhout, W. Tuinstra, and W.Halffman, editors. Environmental expertise: connecting science,policy and society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162514.011

van Mierlo, B., J. Halbe, P. J. Beers, G. Scholz, and J. Vinke-deKruijf. 2020. Learning about learning in sustainability transitions.Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34:251-254.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.001

VERBI Software. 2019. MAXQDA 2020. VERBI Software,Berlin, Germany.

Vilsmaier, U., M. Engbers, P. Luthardt, R. M. Maas-Deipenbrock, S. Wunderlich, and R. W. Scholz. 2015. Case-basedmutual learning sessions: knowledge integration and transfer intransdisciplinary processes. Sustainability Science 10(4):563-580.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0335-3

Walter, A. I., S. Helgenberger, A. Wiek, and R. W. Scholz. 2007.Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects:design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation andProgram Planning 30(4):325-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002

Wittmayer, J. M., and N. Schäpke. 2014. Action, research andparticipation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions.Sustainability Science 9(4):483-496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0553-6

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0553-6

https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.19.3.9


https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_11

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316162514.011

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.001

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0335-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4


Appendix 1

Interview protocol for researchers

1. Introduction

1.1. Aim of this questionnaire

This questionnaire aims at capturing the learning process that accompanied the project implementation, from the point of view of different actors involved in the process.

1.2. What do we mean with “learning process”?

The learning process refers to the production of knowledge as a joint process among stakeholders and scientists (Vilsmaier et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2007), building on the notion of mutual learning, defined as “the basic process of exchange, generation, and integration of existing or newly developing knowledge in different parts of science and society” (Scholz, 2001). You can also think about “insights” or “perspectives” gained through the process.

1.3. Disclaimer on data handling

Results of this questionnaire will be used exclusively for research purposes under the scope of the ENABLE project. Presentation of results will not identify any respondent’s name. No personal information such as phone number or bank details will be collected. E-mail address will only be collected if voluntarily given by the respondent (for purposes of receiving further information on the project), but will not be included in the presentation of results. By proceeding you consent to take the survey (you can revoke this at any time).

2. Questions on the learning process

2.1. In which ENABLE city did you conduct your research?

2.2. What events or other opportunities to foster learning did you promote in your ENABLE case study city? In which stages of the project did they take place?

2.3. What knowledge or ideas/insights/perspectives did you gain through your participation in the project (even if you don’t consider them as something you have “learned”)?

2.4. Through which project-related activities (e.g. workshops in other ENABLE cities, stakeholder workshops in own city) do you think you have learned the most? And the least?

2.5. Did you learn any terms (like technical terms) that were new to you? If yes, how useful do you find them for your activities? Did you experience some difficulty communicating with/understanding others due to the terms/jargon used?

2.6. Do you feel you learned something from the research team? And from other actors in the city? Can you identify what you have learned from each of them? (main items)

2.7. Do you think there were other actors, who could have been beneficial to the learning process, but who were not engaged in the project? Were there any particular reasons to not engage them?

2.8. For which purposes do you see the knowledge created in the project useful (e.g. supporting GBI planning/managing processes)?

2.9. In which ways is the knowledge produced in the project useful for you (as support to your activities)?

2.10. What new knowledge or new insights resulting from the project do you consider the most relevant for the planning and management of green and blue infrastructure in your case study city?

2.11. Did the project meet your expectations regarding what you wanted to learn about? If not, what would you have liked to learn about, which was not possible through the project?

3. Questions related with the Most Significant Change

3.1. What did you find most interesting and useful from the project? What were the main “take-home messages”?

The questions below are relevant during the MSC interviews and should be introduced, but only if they are not spontaneously mentioned by participants.

3.2. Could you actually apply some of the new knowledge/insights/ideas resulting from the project in your own activities (e.g. in other research projects)?

3.3. Could you identify any barriers that prevented knowledge exchange between the research team and local actors?

3.4. Based on your experience with ENABLE, how should knowledge exchange strategies and processes be designed in the future to enhance the learning process?

3.7. Is there anything you want to add regarding your experience with the project, which has not been mentioned so far?

Interview protocol for stakeholders

1. Introduction

1.1. General ENABLE introduction

ENABLE is a EU-funded research project that aims to develop and test new methods and tools to leverage the potential of GBI interventions in neighbourhoods and across metropolitan regions while adopting a social and environmental justice perspective and taking into account the perceptions of local stakeholders. It tests possible GBI solutions to urban challenges in the metropolitan regions of Halle, Barcelona, Łódź, Stockholm and Oslo, while also exchanging with the city of New York.

1.2. Aim of this questionnaire

This questionnaire aims at capturing the learning process that accompanied the project implementation, from the point of view of different actors involved in the process.

1.3. What do we mean with “learning process”?

The learning process refers to the production of knowledge as a joint process among stakeholders and scientists (Vilsmaier et al., 2015; Walter et al., 2007), building on the notion of mutual learning, defined as “the basic process of exchange, generation, and integration of existing or newly developing knowledge in different parts of science and society” (Scholz, 2001). You can also think about “insights” or “perspectives” gained through the process.

1.4. Disclaimer on data handling

Results of this questionnaire will be used exclusively for research purposes under the scope of the ENABLE project. Presentation of results will not identify any respondent’s name. No personal information such as phone number or bank details will be collected. E-mail address will only be collected if voluntarily given by the respondent (for purposes of receiving further information on the project), but will not be included in the presentation of results. By proceeding you consent to take the survey (you can revoke this at any time).

2. Questions on the learning process

2.1. In which role(s) did you get involved with ENABLE (e.g. practitioner in organization X; researcher at university Y; citizen with no particular affiliation)?

2.2. How is your work related to Green and Blue Infrastructure in the city?

2.3. When did you participate in project’s activities (e.g. workshops, field trips)?

2.4. Would you have liked to participate in other stages of the project but you think the project did not give you the opportunity to do it? If yes, in which stages?

2.5. What knowledge or ideas/insights/perspectives did you gain through your participation in the project (even if you don’t consider them as something you have “learned”)?

2.6. Through which project-related activities (e.g. hands-on exercises; dialogues with others) or outputs (e.g. maps, models, indicators) do you think you have learned the most? And the least?

2.7. Did you learn any terms (like technical terms) that were new to you? If yes, how useful do you find them for your activities? Did you experience some difficulty communicating with/understanding others due to the terms/jargon used?

2.8. Do you feel you learned something from the research team? And from other actors in the city? Can you identify what you have learned from each of them?

2.9. Do you think there were other actors, who could have been beneficial to the learning process, but who were not engaged in the project?

2.10. For which purposes do you see the knowledge created in the project useful (e.g. supporting GBI planning/managing processes)?

2.11. In which ways is the knowledge produced in the project useful for you (as support to your activities)?

2.12. What new knowledge or new insights resulting from the project do you consider the most relevant for the planning and management of green and blue infrastructure in the city?

2.13. Did the project meet your expectations regarding what you wanted to learn about? If not, what would you have liked to learn about, which was not possible through the project?

3. Questions related with the Most Significant Change

3.1. What did you find most interesting and useful from the project? What were the main “take-home messages”?

The questions below are relevant during the MSC interviews and should be introduced, but only if they are not spontaneously mentioned by participants.

3.2. Could you actually apply some of the new knowledge/insights/ideas resulting from the project in your own activities?

3.3. Did you feel that you could influence some aspects of the project (e.g. directing research questions; identifying issues to focus research efforts)?

3.4. Do you think that the project promoted interactions with other actors in the city?

3.5. Could you identify any barriers that prevented knowledge exchange between the research team and local actors?

3.6. Based on your experience with ENABLE, how should knowledge exchange strategies and processes be designed in the future to enhance the learning process?

3.7. Is there anything you want to add regarding your experience with the project, which has not been mentioned so far?

References

Scholz, R.W., 2001. The Mutual Learning Sessions, in: Klein, J.T., Häberli, R., Scholz, R.W., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Bill, A., Welti, M. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society: An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Birkhäuser Basel, Basel, pp. 117–129. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_11

Vilsmaier, U., Engbers, M., Luthardt, P., Maas-Deipenbrock, R.M., Wunderlich, S., Scholz, R.W., 2015. Case-based Mutual Learning Sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustainability Science 10, 563–580. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0335-3

Walter, A.I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., Scholz, R.W., 2007. Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and Program Planning 30, 325–338. doi:10.1016/J.EVALPROGPLAN.2007.08.002

Appendix 2 Informed consent form Research project title: ENABLE Research investigator: André Mascarenhas Research Participant’s name: Within the ENABLE project, we are conducting a study on the learning process taking place during the project. For that study, we are conducting interviews with members of the research team, to gather their insights on that topic, based on their experience during the project. No personal data will be collected through this interview. The results of the study are to be published in the form of an open-access scientific article. This consent form is to ensure that you understand the purpose of your involvement and that you agree to the conditions of your participation. Please read the information contained in this form and then sign it to certify that you approve the following:

• the interview will be recorded and a transcript will be produced; • you will have access to the transcript and be given the opportunity to correct

any factual errors; • the results of the study are to be published in the form of an open-access

scientific article; • the transcript of the interview will be analysed by André Mascarenhas as

research investigator; • access to the interview transcript will be limited, during the writing of the

scientific article, to the co-authors (André Mascarenhas, Johannes Langemeyer, Erik Andersson, Sara Borgström, Dagmar Haase), and afterwards will be made available as supplementary material to the scientific article;

• any summary interview content, or direct quotations from the interview, that are made available through academic publication or other academic outlets will be anonymized so that you cannot be identified, and care will be taken to ensure that other information in the interview that could identify yourself is not revealed;

• the actual recording will be deleted after the scientific article has been published;

• you have the right to stop the interview or withdraw from the research at any time;

• any variation of the conditions above will only occur with your further explicit approval.

Should you have any further questions or concerns about your participation, please contact: André Mascarenhas Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Unter den Linden 6, 10117 Berlin Germany +49 (030) 2093-9415 ________________________ ________________________ Participant signature Date ________________________ ________________________ Researcher signature Date

Appendix 3 Coded interview transcriptions

1/6

OSL1

2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou

promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe

projectdidtheytakeplace?

R:Maybeinthreecontexts.Iinvolvedmostlynon-ENABLE

collaborators/stakeholders,whichmeansthatthelearningismore

dynamicandinterac ve,there’slearningrelatedtomoremethod

development,butthat’smoreclassicalresearch,inthiscontextitis

alsointeres ngthelearningwithusersoftheresultsoutsideofour

ins tu on.Sothethreecontextswerethepar cipa onand

developmentofaNorwegianstandardfortheblue-greenfactoror

greenpointsystem,par cipa oninthedevelopmentof(avisionfor)a

standardforvalua onoftreesinNordiccountries,wherewe

par cipatedinanexpertgrouponbehalfoftheproject,andworkon

spa almodellingofgreenroofsasaninputtothegreenroofstrategy

ofOslo.Thosewerethethreewherewehadalotofcontactwith

externalactors.Regardingtheorderinwhichwedidthesethings,

sincethebeginningofENABLEwewerearguingfortheneedfora

blue-greenfactorstandardforNorway,therewasonlyoneexis ngfor

Osloandafewothermunicipali es,sowewerepartoftheactors

callingforaNorwegianstandardandalsosincethebeginningofthe

projectwewereengagingwithotherNordictreevaluingresearchers

ontheneedtoupdateanexis ngstandardforvalua onoftrees,to

takebe eraccountofecosystemservices.Thoseareafewthingsthat

areongoingsince2016andthenthegreenroofsmodelingwithmul -

criteriaanalysiswasalaterini a vewhichstartedacoupleofyears

ago.

2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain

throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider

themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?

R:Thefactthatconclusionsorhypothesisyoumightalreadyhavehad

workinginyourcity,theyareeitherrejectedorreinforcedbythe

possibilitytocomparewithotherci es.SoIfounditveryusefulthe

workthatwasdoneoncomparinggreenspaceaccessandavailability,

thecompara vemappingworkacrosstheci esIfoundthatvery

usefultosortoutwhatwasimportantandwhatwasn'timportantto

focusoninOslo.Soundsali lebitcontradictoryinthesensethatwe

shouldasaresearcherbeworkingoncityspecificneedsbutit'seasy

togettheneedsofthecityandtheresearchinterestsmixedup,andit

waskindofeasiertosortthingsoutsi ngtogetherwithotherci es

andhearingabouttheirpriori esandalsocomparingifaccessto

greenspacewasreallyabigissueinOsloorifit’sjustabigissue

locally.Thosekindofthingsbecomeclearwhenithasthiscomparison

possibilitythattheprojectgivesyou.

2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

..Synergies with other projects

..How

..When

..What

2/6


fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave

learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)

R:InENABLE,morethaninanyotherprojectpreviouslywetriedto

connectwithongoingini a vesorrealdecision-makingprocess

outsidetheproject,notsomuchconstructedstakeholderdiscussion

spaceswithintheproject.WedidthatmorethanI'vedonebeforein

otherprojectsandthat'swhyIwasemphasizingthepar cipa onin

theseexpertcommi eesontheblue-greenfactorstandard,orthe

standardfortreevalua onorthegreenroofstrategyinOslo.Those

wereprocessesnotdesignedbyENABLE,butwhereENABLE

contributedtoeithertheirset-upjustpar cipatedinsomethingthat

wasalreadyestablishedasexper seandthatgaveussomeinsights

wewouldn'talreadyhave,sothelearningwasalotabouthowto

maketheresearchinENABLErelevantfortheseexternalprocesses

thatalreadyexist,insteadofdesigningastakeholderinterac onspace

wherethestakeholderswereadap ngtothatresearchdesign.O en

wedesignstakeholderworkshopswherewesettheprogramandwe

invitethestakeholdersintoaspacecreatedbyusasresearchersbutat

leastinOsloandENABLEweweremorethananythingpar cipa ngin

spacesdesignedbyotherpeopleandtryingtomakeourresearch

relevantforthatprocess.

2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother

ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou

havelearnedthemost?Andtheleast?

R:Seeprocessesmen onedin2.2.Thelearningwasalotabouthow

tomakeENABLEresultsrelevanttotheseotherprocesses.

2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto

you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou

experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding

othersduetotheterms/jargonused?

R:Iguesswespentquitealong mebutthatwasacomplementary

oneondecidingaboutthesefilters.Idon'tthinkIeverusedthe

conceptoffiltersbefore.(unclear)Wewerekindofpar cipa nginits

defini onfromthestartbutpossibly[STO1]hadusedthisconcept

before,butitwasanewconcepttomeoranewframework.

Difficul es:Ican’trememberanysitua onwherewewereobviously

talkingpasteachother,butthediscussiononthefilterstookalong

mesothat'smaybeevidencethatweweren'tpu ngthesame

thingsintothoseconceptstobeginwith,butofcoursewesetupa

processtounderstandeachotherfromthestart,sothatwasnormal.

2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen

beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

..Who

..How

..How

..What

3/6


project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?

R:Ineveryprojectonurbanecosystemserviceswecon nuewehave

toworkwithengagementwiththemunicipali es,it’snotlikeyoujust

doitinoneprojectandtheneverythingstops.Youhavetokeep

comingbacktoit,O enseveral meswithinthesameproject,

becausethemunicipalityhas-eventheOslomunicipality,thebest

equippedmunicipalityinNorway-hasvery ghtbudgetsand

personnel metoengagewithresearchprojects.Andthere’salotof

expertswithwhomwemakearela onship,whoquitandmoveon,

thenthere’snewpersonnelandyouhavetostartthewholetrust-

buildingexercisefromthebeginningagain.Thathashappenedseveral

meswithdifferentagencies(liketheplanningandbuildingagency,

theenvironmentagency,thewaterandsewageagencyandsoon),so

it’saconstantefforttorenewcontacts.InvariablewaysIcouldhave

hopedformoreengagementfromtheenvironmentagency,butthe

reasonsforthatareduetopersonnelchanges.It’snotastructural

thingaboutENABLEorevenastructuralweaknessoftheenvironment

agencyorthemunicipality,it’sjusttherealitythat-ifyouwant

anotherlearningexperience-that'sprobablythekindofmeta-

experienceinthebackgroundthatengagingwiththestakeholdersisa

con nuousand me-demandingprocess.

2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe

projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?

R:Thosethreeprocesses-thegreen-bluefactor,thetreevalua on

exerciseandthespa almodelingofgreenroofs.Onewayof

structuringthepurposesoftheresearchthatI'veusedpreviouslyis

informa vepurposes,decisivepurposesandtechnicalsupport

purposes.Forthosethreeprocessesthegreenroofsmodelingwasfor

thepurposeofspa alpriori za onofwheregreenroofsfilldemand

gapsandprovidemosteffectfortheuseofspaceandthat'sadecisive

purposetargetedatplanningandzoningandthenforthevalua onof

treesworkingontheNordicstandardthatwouldbeusedbyOslo

municipalitythat’satechnicalsupportpurposebecauseit’sequipping

thecitywithatreedamagecompensa onassessmentthat’sup-to-

dateincludingecosystemservicesandthesamewouldgoforthatthe

bluegreenfactorstandard,it'stechnicalsupportpurpose.

2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful

foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?

R:IcouldcomebacktothethreetoolsIwastalkingaboutbefore

whichallwillleadtofutureworkbecausethey'rebeingintegratedinto

standardsorplansinthemunicipalityoratna onallevel,soIthinkI

willcomebacktotheminthefuturemostdefinitely,butonething

recentlywas…therewouldbenowayIcouldn'teventhoughtof

reac ngtothecurrentshutdownandtherelevanceforgreenspace

researchwithouthavinginteractedwiththeci esinENABLEandthe

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

..Who


..Role of context

..What

..Why

..Why

4/6

researchwithouthavinginteractedwiththeci esinENABLEandthe

researchersonaccesstogreenspacewhichwasaveryimportant

aspectoftheproject.MaybeIwouldn'tevenimagineIhaveany

relevanceinthatdebatewhereashavingbeeninENABLEIfeltlikewe

couldwithinafewdaysreacttothesitua onsothat'sdefinitely…not

sayingI'mgonnabecomeaCOVID-19greenspaceaccessresearcher

fromnowon-butyoucouldmaybeseeifourblogpiecegets

publishedrela velyquicklythenwemightgetcontacted,someofus

inourrespec veci estopar cipateonfurtherresearchonthose

topics-onresilienceandinrela ontopandemics.Thatwouldbea

verydirectresultofENABLEthatcouldn’thavecomeaboutwithany

otherproject.

2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe

projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand

managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy

city?

R:SeeQ2.9(Thethreetoolspreviouslymen oned)

2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou

wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn

about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?

R:Oneexpecta onIhadmyselfwhichIdidn'tfulfillwas,Iwashoping

thatitwaspossibletodomorecompara vemodelingworkbetween

theci essowetriedwithmul -criteriaanalysisvalua on.Ithought

maybeintheverybeginningwhenwewerewri ngtheproposalthatI

wouldbeworkingmoreonforexamplemonetaryvalua onofthe

benefitsofthegreenspacewhichismycoreexper sebutcomingto

theprojectthereweren'tmanyotherresearcherswithintheteamthat

hadthatbackgroundsoitdidn'tseempossibletodocompara ve

monetaryvalua on,soweswitchedtomul -criteriaanalysis.Fora

whileweweretryingtoseewhetherwecoulddosomething

compara veonagent-basedmodeling.Thatdidn'tgoanywheresoI

probablyhadtheexcessiveexpecta onsonimplemen ngthesame

kindofquan ta vespa almonetarymodelingacrossci esthatdidn't

turnouttobepossiblebecauseofthecombina onofthe

constella onofdisciplinesandexper seintheprojectandalso

becauseofmaybeover-ambi ononmypart.Andthendidn'tendup

havingenoughcapacitytodothatandtheotherthingswewantedto

dointheproject.SoIthinkpossiblywewentoutwithtoomanytopics

fromourside,butitismyfaultwemighthavego enfurtherifwe

focusedonfewerissues.

3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge

exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?

R:It’sabitofachicken-eggproblem.Ithinkwespentalotofenergy

workingonourconceptualapproachwiththefilterspaperandsowe

didn'thaveinplacethiscommontheore caldesignun lhalfway,or

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

..Why

..What

..Why

..Expectations

..Expectations

..Barriers to learning

5/6

didn'thaveinplacethiscommontheore caldesignun lhalfway,or

evenpasthalfwayintheproject,whichmeantthatitwasn’tsoeasyto

designtheempiricalmethodswithinthecontextofthefilters

framework-althoughit'ssogeneralthatyoucanalwayssqueeze

thingsbackintothatframework-butifthefilterspaperhadexisted

andwehadbasedtheproposalwiththatasatheore calframework

wecouldhavemaybeachievedmoreintegra onacrossmethods.In

thecurrentprojectdesigntherewaskindofle ngmanyflowers

bloomapproachandtheprojecthasbeenveryrichforthatbutifwe

hadaframeworkearlierwemighthavebeenabletolinkacross

betweenmethodsandcases-thisisahypothesis.

3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge

exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto

enhancethelearningprocess?

R:Ihaveenjoyedpar cipa nginpolicymakingguidanceandmaking

processesonbehalfofENABLEinNorwayandIwilldefinitely

encouragetousethatmodalityagaininthefutureifit'spossible.

Some mesit'sama eroftakingadvantageofopportuni esthat

presentthemselvesbecauseyoudon'talwayshaveapolicyprocess

youcanconnectintofromaresearchprojectandweobviouslycan't

designapolicyprocesswitharesearchproject,soIwouldsaytothe

extentpossibleorwherepossibleconnecttheprojecttoongoing

policyprocessesratherthandesigningstakeholderinterac on

contextswhichdon'thaveapolicydrivenpurpose.Some mesitfeels

likeasresearcherswe'redrivingthepolicyagendaforthestakeholders

-andwehavetosome mes,there'savacuumandthere'snoother

waytodoit-butifthereisaprocessongoingtrytoconnecttothat

insteadofdesigningaseparatespaceforinterac on.

3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?

Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?

R:Comparingproblemsacrossci eshelpsyoutoputthemagnitude

ofyourlocalproblemsinperspec veandincontextandhelpsto

maybesortoutpriori es,soifyoucancomplementdoingthatwith

priori zingyourresearchissuesrelatedtowhatlocalplannersand

stakeholdersaresayingisimportant.Thenthatwouldbetheop mal

combina on.Ifyouonlyknewoneortheotherthanyoumightbe

focussingontoomanyproblemsifyoulistentoallstakeholderswith

alltheiragendasyoumightgetboggeddowninrabbitholessohaving

thecrosscityperspec vehelpsyoutokindoffindoutwhatproblems

doyouhaveinyourcityandwhataretherealresilienceissues.It's

reallyquitedifficulttothinkabouturbanresilienceifyouarelockedin

yourowncitybubble,becauseit'sreallyhardtothinkintermsof

futurescenarioswhenallyoucanseeisyourowncitylandscapeatthe

presentpointin me.Whenyoucancompareandcontextualiseyour

ecosystemservicesornature-basedsolu onsbylookingacrossci es

yougetthisspace- medimensionwhichhelpsyoutothinkmore

clearlyabouturbanresilience,becauseyoucanseealterna vestates

25

26

27

28

29

..Expectations


..Recommendations for future

..Most Significant Change


6/6

clearlyabouturbanresilience,becauseyoucanseealterna vestates

thatyourcitycouldbeinandthat'snotpossibleoratleastmuchmore

difficultwhenyouonlyworkinyourowncitybubble.IfIthinkina

veryconceptualwaythatmightbeatake-homemessagefrom

ENABLE.Youcan’treallydourbanresiliencestudieswellunlessyou

haveacross-citycomparisonapproach.

End29



1/6

HAL1




R:TwoworkshopsinHallewithstakeholders,onemoreatthe

beginningoftheprocess,theotheronemoretowardstheend.




R:Therewasonebiginsight:Thescalesinthecityoperate

independently.Exis ngproblemsatthelocalscalearenotreflectedby

urbanplanners.ForexamplethebadimageofHalleNewtownwhere

peopledon’tuseoffersofmunicipality.Urbanplannersdon’t

understand,thatgivingmoneytoandengageac vepeople(like[local

stakeholdername])doesnotsolvetheissue.TheIssueisinthe

pa ernofthepopula oninthecity,whichisreinforcedbythecity

governmentbypu ngallneglectedgroupsthere.Thepointhereis

thatsome mesonescaledoesn’tseetheotherandviceversa.This

toldmealsothatourcoreprinciplesinlandscapeecologyorurban

ecologyofscaletransparencyorscaletransmissionmightbecorrectat

naturalsciencesidebutmightbemisleadinginsomespheresofthe

social-andplanningeconomicside.ArjenBuijswithhismosaic

approachmightbeclosertohowthisworks.




R:Yes,thereweretwoissuesthatwerenotveryposi veandthat

unexpectedlydidnotwork.ThefirstissueisthattheQ-method

doesn’twork.Iwassoop mis cthatthismethodcouldyield

addi onalknowledgeandcouldbecomplementedwiththemental

mappingandIamnotsurewhatexactlywentwrong.Thesecondissue

wastheresilienceassessment.Itissomuchshapedtothecondi ons

oftheresearcherswhoaredevelopingthisconceptthatitishardto

adaptittoanyothercontentthatmightrununderaslightlydifferent

regime.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Thelocalworkshops/theHalleworkshop,becauseIstartedto

learnthisgap(men onedbefore).TheHalleworkshopstartedanew

thinkingaboutgreenplanninginci esandrelatedtodifferentsocial/

incomegroups.AlsothelastfinalworkshopinBrusselsshowedthat

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

..When

..How

..What

..What

..When

..How

2/6

incomegroups.AlsothelastfinalworkshopinBrusselsshowedthat

therearemanydifferentpeopleinterested.TheladyfromOslowas

veryposi ve,ac veand‘aboutdata’,theladyfromLodzwassaying:

“Wehavetotakepeopleathandandguidethemthroughthejungle

ofwhatwearedoing”.AndtheladiesfromtheEUwanttopush

something.Butthereare,again,somanyscalesandlevels,thatthe

green,thecoreissue,theecosystemisalmostunimportant.Human

andsocietalimpairmentswerethemorepresenttopic.Wetalked

aboutgreenroofs,butnature,asarealintrinsicissuedidnotplaya

role.Nobodytalkedaboutdiversity.ThiswasthesameatURBES

project.Thediversityandtherealnatureaspect,beyondthefunc ons

forhumanswasmissing.Thereisanongoingbias,whichmakesus

circlingaroundourcoreissue.Maybewedon’tunderstanditorhave

noknowledgeaboutit.Orhaveafearthatwewoulddiscover

somethingwhichiscompletelynotworking,likethisvirusorinsects

wedon’twanttohave.Wejusttouchthecoreissueintermsofitsan

asset,astock,andwehavetoplanandlookforpercep ons.Butwe

donotlookatit.(Thiswasmoreasidelineoflearninganddidnot

buildtoomuchonwhatwasthere).





R:Iknewthistermbefore,butIuseitmuchmorenow,theflowsterm

that[STO1]introducedinJune,inthefirstmee ngbecausehe

introduceditveryclearly.Theothergroupoftermsisrelatedto

accessibility,availability,a rac venessandbarriers.Ineverusedthe

wordbarrierssoo enaswithinENABLE.Thetermbarrierswasvery

useful,becauseitshedlightonanaspectthatwedon’tdiscusstoo

much.Ithasitslimita onsbutitisamissinglinkintermsofgreen

spaceaccessibility.AlsotheQ-methodwasnew.Notnewtomewas

mentalmappingasamethod,butthecontentwasnew.Ireally

engagedwiththismethodforthefirst me.Also,Iusedthewordfilter

beforeindifferentcontexts,likechemicalorop calfiltersorenergy

budgets.ButIappliedthewordfilterinmyscienceforthefirst mein

termsofecosystemservicesembeddednessorflow.

Difficul es:Theaccessibilityandavailabilitytermsthatweredefined

bythePolishteam,theexclusionorinclusioncriteriaarenoten rely

cleartome.Thiswasformetoosta c.Weo entalkedabouttwo

differentthingswhentalkingwiththePolishteam.




R:TherewasaworkshopbythePolishcolleaguesabout

environmentaljus ceingreenspaceuseinCentralEasternEurope

comparedtothewesterndebatewherewemetinLodz.Ibroughtmy

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

..When

..How

..Why

..What

..Difficulties w/ terms

..Who

3/6

comparedtothewesterndebatewherewemetinLodz.Ibroughtmy

Leipzig/HalleandEasternBerlinknowledgein.HereIlistenedtovery

crudeperspec vesofenvironmentalinjus ceinotherpartsofeastern

Europe,whichIdidnotknowtothisextent.Thisopenedmyeyeson

howrela vetheassessmentsofnon-accessibilityandbarriersisina

partofacon nentwhereyouthinktherearemanycommonlegacies

andothercommonthings.Thatwasthemostimpac ngoutsideclub

ofpeopleduringtheENABLEproject.Andwhatmightnotbea

personalizedactor,butwhatimpactedmyresearch,thinkingand

learningduringENABLEwastheparalyzedunitsofplanninginLeipzig

andBerlinduringthehotsummers2018/19.Thisshapedmythinking

towardswhyestablishnewgreenifwecannotevencareaboutthe

exis ngone.Whatdoesitmeantohavemoreandmoregreenwhile

havinglessandlesswater?



R:Ingeneral,wecreatednewdataforeachcitywhichisalwaysgood

forurban/regionalplanningdepartmentsorteams.Also,we

contactednewstakeholders,andtheothercasestudiescontacted

exis ngrela onships,offeringoursupport.Par cularlyforHalle

mentalmappingwasveryimportant,becauseweplayeditbackinthe

finalworkshop.Andyoucouldseehelplessness,maybewe

contributedabithere,insofarthiswasthepurposeofsheddinglight

onsomething.Thefocuswasalsotoopenupanewcasestudyforour

team.Ourcasestudieswerenotreallyajointapproach.Theywere

similarcasestudieswhichcouldhavebeenge nganinteres ng

bundleofcasesrunningthroughacertainlabwithacertainsequence

ofmethods.Butthiswasnotdoable,becauseeverycasestudyhasits

interestsetc.Sothepurposeofcrea ngacross-EuropeanlabforGBI

flows,barriersandfilterscouldnotbereallyreached.Buttheprocess

wasstartedandweworkedontheoriesandconceptwithillustra ve

examples.Wedidn’tcomeupwithnewguidelinesforEuropeanci es

with“do’sanddont's”.




city?

R:InHalleIthinktherearetwothings:Oneisthebarriersandthe

thinkinginfilters.Thiscanbenicelyappliedtoplanning,wherealotof

planningisalreadyconducted.Thisisaboutrealassets,aboutreal

issues.Andwhenunderstandingtheseunitsthatareusedandthe

differentvariables,thisisreallyveryhelpful.Theotherthingis-ata

smallerextent-thegreenroofissuewasforOsloveryimportant,for

otherci esmorecomplementary.Forexample,forOslothegreen

roofissuethat[OSL1]wasrunningwasveryimportantandwanted.

MaybeabitoutsidetheENABLEcontext.Andthesefilters,

accessibility,availabilityandbarrierissuewasthekey-whichIthink

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

..Who

..Why

..Expectations

..What

4/6

accessibility,availabilityandbarrierissuewasthekey-whichIthink

youshouldrememberwhenthinkingaboutENABLE.Notsomuchthe

resilienceassessmenttheydidinStockholm,becauseitwashardto

seehowothercasestudieswhoweredoingthisandcouldreally

benefitfromthis.Itwasareallyhardexercisewithoutaclearbig

benefit.



R:Intermsofpuremethods,theapplica onofmentalmappingin

StockholmandHalle,whichreallywentwellandwegotinteres ng

results.ItisakindofcomplementtothesurveytypesIusesofarin

greenspaceslikePPGIS(publicpar cipa ongeographicinforma on

systems)orsimilarpar cipatoryobserva onsorsurveysandsoon.

Thiswasreallyagain.Thesecondwastobeawareofimpairments,

thatwehavesomanyissuesthatseemverylooselyandthatit'snot

reallyaboutintrinsicfunc oningofnature.Thisisaverysadfinding.It

wasnotreallyaboutacknowledgingthedangersfornaturethatwe

runinunderclimatechange.Thebasicrequirementsfornaturewere

simplyignored.Wedon’tgetintothesystemsandlivingorganismnext

tohumansinthisnature.Wetalkabout“co-“butwetrytopushour

impressionsthrougheverythingandweseegreenasaservant,and

thismakesmesad.




R:Firstly,wewantedtocon nuewhatwestartedinURBES.And

secondly,relatedtothecasestudy,IwantedtogetawayfromBerlin

andLeipzigandopenupanewcasestudy,whichiss llmorefragile

thanthesegrowingpoles.So,thiswasaveryregionalrelatedissue.

Myexpecta onswerethatwegetdeeperintowherewehadtostop

inURBES.Andwedidthiswiththeaccessibilityandbarriers,whichisa

nicecon nua onoftheecosystemserviceresultsfromURBES.Also,

theresilienceassessment,whereourplaninURBESdidn’tworkout.

Thisdidn’tworkoutinENABLEasgoodastheaccessibilityand

barriersissue.Iwantedtogetthesystemmodellingandagent-based

modellingin,becausethecasestudieswereinteres ngandwehave

newcasestudies,butIsawthatthedatagatheringwassohard.Iwas

disappointedthatwedidn’tmanagetogetthesystem-andagent-

basedmodelsrunninginthelife meoftheproject.Wehaveagood

pre-requisitenow,butmyexpecta onswerehigherthanwhatwe

couldachieve.Theyneedmore meandcannotbedonewithso

manycasestudies.Maybewithonecasestudyyoucouldgetadeeper

understandingandestablishasystemaswellasanagent-based

model.Butwithsomanycasestudiesandsomanyspreadworkloads

itseemsimpossible.IfIcouldrewriteENABLE,Iwouldsayweshould

collecttheknowledge,compileit,structureit,andtrytodevelopa

desk-studyontheknowledgewehaveacquiredandgetintoa

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

..What

..Why

..Expectations


5/6

desk-studyontheknowledgewehaveacquiredandgetintoa

systema clearningonhowtouserealdynamicmodels,notlook-up

tables.Tolearnfromwhatwealreadyhave,becausewehavealotof

data,butwetendtoaddmoredataratherthanlearnfromwhatwe

have.




R:Oneofthecoreissuesistofocusonfailure,onnon-successwhichis

be erforunderstandinginsteadofhighlightnumbersofwhat

increasedorwhatwasbe er.Because,youcometotheweakpoints

ofasystemwhichcanturnasystemontoabadpathway.Another

issueishonesty,whichrelatestothepandemic.Wehaveniceand

friendlycommunica on,whichshouldstaythisway,butitsnot

touchingthehotpointsfordifferentreasons.Like“Icouldn’thirea

person;Ididn’thaveenoughmoney;thestakeholdersdon’twantto

hearthat”.Myclearstatementforcommunica onis:Ithinkweshould

touchconflictpointsandgivenatureandhumansinnatureastronger

mandateandnottrytobepolitetothosewhosetnatureandhumans

innatureunderpressure.Wehavetosaymoreclearlywhatisonthe

agenda.Whenwewriteaprojectproposal,wewriteaboutbasicsin

termsofachievements,wedon’tclearlysaywhatisnotworking.

Maybeinareportoraroundtable,butnotinofficialcommunica on

ofproject.Wearealwaysadding,butnobodyiswri ngabout

problemsandconflictsandno-go’sandissuesduringtheproject.But

thiswouldbehelpful-alsoforthefunder.Insofar,honestywouldbea

bigissueforme.



R:Thereisacertainmutualdependencethatshapestheinterac on,

anditischaracterizedbylimitedresourcesandlimitedpower.Anditis

onepartofaneo-liberallyshapedsystemwherealotofdeficitsneed

tobefought.Forexample,insciencewehavehalfposi onsor25%

posi onsthatcreateveryfragilecondi ons,alsoforplanners.

Environmentalandsocialbudgetsarethefirsttobecut,whichmakes

usaveryvulnerablegroupofpeoplethattrytomakethebestoutof

thesesitua ons.Wearemutuallydependent–theyhavetoinclude

scienceandwehavetoapplyourknowledgetodisseminatecase

studies,sowearerelevant.Thecelebra ngofthemutualrelevance

shapesourrela onshipsinthesamewayasrealinterest.ButI’mnot

sureifmutualdependenceismoreimportantthantheinterestin

natureandinpeople.Allinall,thisvulnerabilityinthesystemshapes

usall,sincewearenotthepowerfulactorslikee.g.actorsfromthe

housingmarket,theywon’tlisten.Andweknowthisandweknow

thatoursugges onsarenon-validifwedon’tincludepowerfulactors.

ThisgeneraldependencebecameveryclearinENABLE.

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

..Expectations


..Importance of failing



6/6



R:Firstly,thatscalesma erbuttheydon’talwayscommunicate.

Second,wearecirclingaroundtherealco-habita onofhumansand

natureinci es.Welookatnatureasastockorassetbutforgetabout

itsrealimportance.Andthird,weneedmoreempiricaldata

measurementsandknowledgefromthenatureside.Wewerestrong

atthesocialsideandweakatthenaturesideandlikethis,co-working

andco-learningcannotwork.

3.7.Isthereanythingyouwanttoaddregardingyourexperience

withtheproject,whichhasnotbeenmen onedsofar?

R:AttheworkshopwiththeEasternEuropeansfromRomania,

Hungary,SlovakiaandUkraineinLodzitbecamecleartomethat

whereyoucomefrom,yourpersonalbackgroundandlegaciesplaya

rolehowyouseethingsandhowyouunderstandprogress,conflicts,

dependence,weakness,success.WesawthisinENABLE,comparing

therestric veopinionsby[colleaguename]comparedtothe“we

knowhowthisworks”-a tudefrom[colleaguename].Yourlocal

contextplaysarolehowyoulearnevenifyouseethesamethings.In

anotherroundofinterviewa erENABLEyoucouldaskpeopleabout

whatsourcesofremembering,ofpersonalknowledge,oftacit

knowledgetheyusetoreflectandmirrorprojectslikeENABLE.It

wouldbeinteres ngtoseehowpreviouslearningshapesrecent

learning.Butthisneedsmoreprepara ontoformulatetheright

ques ons.Thenega veshapeofchangeandoveralllossshapes

peoples’mindsaswellasexperienceofnorealchangeorother

changes.IsawthisinENABLE,butweneedaconcepttoreally

ar culatethisinastructuredandsystema cway.

End

27

28

29

30

31


..Role of context

1/5

HAL2




R:Atthebeginningwehadabigevent(HalleworkshopwithENABLE

partnersandlocalstakeholders)andasmallerflexibleeventcentricto

thetopicofbarriersattheend.Butwealsohadasmalland

temporaryvisittotheladiesoftheQuar ersmanagement,wherewe

hadaniceexchange,whichIwouldcountasalearningeventforboth

sides.Forusasresearchersaswellasthelocalstakeholders.Whenwe

wenttoHalleNeustadt,wehadthebrainstormingandtheexchanging

usingamap.WealsowenttoNeutopia,butthiswasmorefor

informingeachother,notnecessarilycapacitybuildingintermsof

learning.Whenthestudentswereinthefieldformentalmapping,it

wasali lebitinbetween.Partofthemethod,whenengagingwith

people,askingforsupportcouldbecountedaslearning.Butthe

assessmentitselfIwouldpurelycountasaninves ga onmethodin

thefield.




R:TherewerevariouslevelswhereIcouldgainsomeinsightsand

ideas.FirstIwasremindedofthechallengesofworkingwith

stakeholders,intermsofproblemunderstanding,the mebudgetand

capacityintotal.Thereisaviciouscircleintheco-designprocess:The

lesscapacitythemunicipalityhas,thelessitisableorinterestedin

contribu ngtotheco-designprocess.Thiswasachallengeforus

workinginHalle,workingwiththelimited meavailabilityandthe

limitedproblemunderstandingofthestakeholders.Frommy

perspec ve,whatIlearnedforthenextprojectIwouldfocusona

certainsetofproblemsanddon’ttrytoaddressthewholebunchof

project-goalstothestakeholders.Thisbecamecleartomeatthe

barrierworkshop,whichwasali lebittoosmallforusbutingeneral

itwasquiteconcentredtalkanddebateandexchangeaboutacertain

setofbarriersandhowtobenefitfromGBIsinitsdifferentfacetsfrom

physical,ins tu onalandpercep onalperspec ves.Thiswasalso

somethingnewforstakeholderstostartthinkingaboutthe

interlinkages.Insummary:thecapacitybuildingaslearning.And

secondly,althoughyouarefocussingonespecificques onitisquite

diversewhenyoustarttalkingaboutdifferentperspec vesontheone

handanddifferentoverlapsontheotherhand.Andthisisvery

interes ngforstakeholders,decisionmakersaswellasfromascholarly

perspec ve.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

..How

..What


2/5


havelearnedthemost?

R:IcanjustspeakfortheworkshopsIpar cipatedinandtheywere

quitediverse.ButIwouldsaywhatwasveryinteres ngwasthe

workshopinStockholm,whichwaskindofdifferenttotheonewehad

inHalle,inthattheStockholmcolleaguessoughtforahugegroupof

differentanddiversestakeholders.Theyhadalongertradi onin

talkingandtheywerequiterootedinthewaytheyexchanged.This

wasquitenewtomebutalsoexci ng,sincewecouldtalkalreadyin

verymuchdetailaboutspecificchallengesconcerningourproblemor

eventhesolu ons.Atthesame methiswaschallengingbecauseof

thediversityofthestakeholders,theperspec ves,sectorallanguages

etc.Justtoturntoperspec ves,thatwasquitebeneficialfromthe

smallbarriersworkshopinHallewherewehadfewstakeholdersand

wecouldreallytalkindetailandconsideroneplanningperspec ve.

Thereweredifferentshapes[ofworkshops]withgoalsandoutcomes,

buttheStockholmway,Ithink,isthenextlevelwewouldliketohave

inHalle.





R:IcannotrecallspecifictermsIlearnedinaddi on.Therewereafew

termsthatwereusedwithaslightlydifferentmeaning.Ibelievethat

theterm‘barriers’wasunderstoodverybroadlyamongthe

stakeholders,par cularlyinphysicalterms.AndIthinkwemanagedto

enlargetheunderstandingofthisterm.Notsomuchintermsof

prac calorimplementa onques onsbutintermsofconceptualizing

andtheorizing,findingtheoverlapsinthelanguageofresiliencewas

quiteinteres ng.Especiallythetermssystemandsystemicfactorand

towhatextentaretheyequivalenttowhatweunderstoodasfilters.

So,maybefiltersandsystemicfactorswassomethingnewandIthink

wearrivedatasharedunderstandingofwhatwemeanbythat.That

wassomethingnewandIneedtolearntoworkanddealwiththat.



learnedfromeachofthem?

R:Workingwiththestakeholderswasquiteinteres ng.Toseetowhat

extentdoourdifferentmethodstargetspecificgroupsinthe

neighbourhoodsorexcludecertaingroups.Forexample,children,

youngpeopleorelderly.Irealizedthattheyaremorediverse,there

arespecificusergroupsthatcannotreallybelabelled.Andtowhich

thisperspec vewithourmethod,howweassessedthedifferent

perspec veswasquiteinteres ng-I'mthinkingaboutthediscussions

withtheQuar ersmanagementinHalle-Neustadt.Fromtalkingto

consor umpartners,ofcourseduetotheintenseexchangewiththe

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

..How

..What

..Who

3/5

consor umpartners,ofcourseduetotheintenseexchangewiththe

colleaguesinLodzweareabletofurtherconceptualizethebarrier

perspec ve.Thiswassomethingthatwejointlyfurtherdeveloped

withamoresocio-ecologicaltouchandnotsomuchinins tu onal

se ng,butofcoursewithplentyofoverlapsandsynergies.




R:Irememberhowwestartedconceptualizingthesystemofourcase

studies,si nginBerlinanddrawingthesystemdynamicsmodeland

mappingdifferentcomponentsinthemodel.Andcomparingtowho

wasactuallyonthetable-whenyouengagewithstakeholdersyou

realizethatyouhardlycancoverallthosecomponents.Ofcoursethat

dependsonhowyousettheboundariesofyoursystem.Fromour

perspec ve,talkingaboutsocio-ecologicalse ngsandtheaccessto

GBIbenefitsasoneaspectinthat,forinstancewedidnothaveany

stakeholdersfromprivatehousingcompaniesorothermoreprofit-

orientedstakeholderswhoactuallyhavequitedecisiveimpactonGBI

benefits.Smallerenterprisesforinstancewhoarereallyimportantfor

communitysensewithintheneighbourhood.Wehadthe

Quar ersmanagement,thecityadministra onandplanningofficials

andlocalgrassrootsini a ves,butnoprivateactors.



R:Everythingwedidisusefulbuttheques onisforwhom.Alotof

whatwedidcouldbeusedforfurtherscholarlyworkandcasestudies,

butintermsofimplementa on,wecreatedanextended

understandingofbarriersandtheoverlaps,embeddedinabroader

system–thinkingaboutwhoaretheotheractorsinplay.Thiswas

interes ngtothinkaboutforthestakeholdersandiftheyuseit

further,thatmightalsoleadtoacertainimplementa on,whichwe

haven’tachievedwithENABLE.Forexample,onestakeholderfromthe

cityadministra onwasveryinterestedinthewaywelookedat

barriersfromdifferentperspec vesbutalsoonthewaywe

incorporatedhousingmarketmechanisms,whichareimportantfor

thewayhowpeopledistributeinspace,whichisquitedecisivetothe

actualaccessibilitytothebenefitsofgreenandblueinfrastructure.

ThisiswhatImeantwithbroadercontext.InENABLEwejuststarted

toworktogetherwithHallestakeholders.Wedidwhatwecouldbutin

termsofavailablecapaci esonbothsides,itwouldbenicetohave

goneonestepfurthertowardsimplementa on.Wehavenotreally

contributedtoaspecificgoalinthecitybutrathercontributedtoa

morediverseproblemunderstandingorawareness.Shi ingthe

perspec veawayfromimplementa on,Iwouldsay,the

conceptualiza onofbarriersandthinkingaboutsystemicfilters,and

thenbridgeittoempiricalobserva oncouldbeusefultobefurther

developed,tobefedwithmoredetails.Ifyouenrichthiswithmore

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

..Who

..Who

..Why

4/5

developed,tobefedwithmoredetails.Ifyouenrichthiswithmore

empiricalmaterialandwithinanotherco-designprocess,youcome

backtothestakeholdersandyoucouldcon nuethepingpong

betweenscholarlyworkandimplementa on.Notjustonthelevelof

cityadministra onbutalsolocalQuar ersmanagement,local

ini a ves,howcantheymakeuseoftheresultslikethosefromthe

mentalmapping–lookingatsmallerpiecesonsmallerscales.



R:Thefiltersarequiteuseful,notjustforthewayyouengagewiththe

benefitsofgreenandblueinfrastructure,butalsointermsofe.g.land

usechangedetec onorforurbanstudiesingeneral.ENABLE

managedtojus fytheusefulnessoffilters,notinasensethatthey

createsomethingbesidesexis ngtypologies.(unclear)So,pu ng

forwardastructuretoworkwithandtofeedit.Istartedworkingin

thisfieldwhenIstartedinENABLE,ecosystemserviceswasnotthe

centerofmypreviouswork,soeverythingwasnewforme.Butinour

scien ficpapers,wewriteaboutthatweareforcedorenabledto

thinkaboutsynergiesbetweendifferentmethods,butwehavenot

reallyfollowedthisinasystema csense.ENABLEprovidedatoolbox

andencouragedeverybodytothinkaboutthebeneficialoverlaps

betweendifferenttechniquesandmethods.




city?

R:SeeQ2.9




R:Ilikedtherootedunderstandingofwhatweareactuallyworking

with.Talkingaboutfilters,barriers,thewaysweassessorthe

interrela onsoffindings.IdobelieveItwasnotthepureinten onof

ENABLEtocomeupwithsetofcompara veelements.Iunderstood

ENABLEmoreasaexplora veway,tryingtoaddressasmuchlocal

specificchallengesaspossibleandthereforeloosingsightofthe

compara veelement,whichisperfectlyfine.ButIwouldencourage

everybodyworkingonfinalproductstobehonestinthisregard.I

missedthewillingnesstoactuallyworkonthecompara vepartofthe

project.Wefocusedontwoscales-theurban/regionaloneandthe

morelocallyspecificone,youcouldsaytheformeristhemore

compara ve-andIwouldhavelovedtoworkmoreonthemore

compara veelements,forinstancetalkingaboutscenarios,butIthink

thiswasapragma cwayofsaying"OKwealreadyhavesomuch,let's

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

..Why

..Why

..Why

..What

..Expectations

5/5

thiswasapragma cwayofsaying"OKwealreadyhavesomuch,let's

s ckwiththat".



R:Themostinteres ngfromascien ficpointofviewwasthis

understandingofasystemcomingfromtheoriestoempiricsand

observa ons.




R:Thereareatleasttwodifferentlevelstothisanswer:Oneis

referringtoarrangingtheinternalprojectlearningchannels,whereI

wouldsaythatthereshouldbemoresharedworkingorganiza on,in

thesensethatyoumanagespecificcross-caseworkinggroups

targe ngonaspecificsetofdifferentaspectsoftheprojectwould

enrichthis.ButIalsodosee,Inourcaseforinstancethatit'salsovery

pragma candsome mesamoreefficientwaytokeepthe

organiza onmorecasestudyrelated.Andtheotherlevelisreferring

tohowyouflaganduseENABLEmaterialtoencouragelearning

beyondtheboundariesoftheproject,likeahomepage.Wehavetwo

strongpartnersinsharingproductsandknowledgecomingfrom

ENABLEtowardstheothercommuni es,likestakeholdersorpolicyor

planning.Iwouldliketohavethisonasmallerscale,likethecase

studylevel,tohavesometools,whichenableamoresustained

communica onchannelbetweenscholarsandstakeholders.



R:Whatwasverynice,wasthatwedidnotonlydodeliverablesand

followourdu es,butthatwealsohadthefreedomtobeunderstood

inamoreexplora veway.Doingresearchinordertofosterour

understandingandourownlearning,whichisnotsomething

common,lookingatotherprojects.

End

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

..Expectations




1/8

STO1




R:Theresilienceassessmentisinterestedintheoutcomesbutitisa

methodologicalapproachtodesigningandrunningaprocess.The

majoroutcomeoftheprocessistheknowledgeco-crea onthat

happensthroughtheprocess.Itisallabouts mula ngortryingto

promoteagoodlearningenvironmentforsociallearning.Therewe

havehaddifferentdesigns:interac veworkshopsandconsulta ons.

Thedifferentworkshopshavebeendesignedtoreachdifferenttypes

ofoutcomesandalsoreflectondifferentwaysofknowingyoursystem

(whetheritismoresystemknowledge,targetknowledgeor

opera onalknowledge).Ithasdiffereddependingontheindividual

focusofeachworkshop.Weo enalsocontactedpeoplea erthe

workshopswhentheyhavehad metodigestandreflectabit,to

haveamoreindividualreflec on.Ithinkthishasbeenanice

complementarywayofs mula ngalearningprocess.Wehavealso

hadaninternalteamreflec ona ereachindividualstepinthe

process.

Intermsofthe meline:wetriedtoaligntheENABLE melinewith

largerongoingprocessesintheregion.OurworkshopsinStockholm

wereacon nua onofapreviouspilotstudyondesirablefutures,soa

con nua onofanexis nglearningprocess.Itwasacombina onof

tryingtomakeuseoftheoutputsofENABLE-andfailing,whichisan

interes nglearningoutcomeinitself-andotherprocesses,because

thecasestudyisnotexclusivetoENABLE.At mesthetwo melines

didnotaligntoosmoothly,sowetriedtobringinENABLEinputsat

specific mesthatwethoughtwererelevant.Sotryingtoaddress

differentstakeholders'needsanddesiresintermsofoutcomes,which

hassome mesmaybedetractedfromthemorepedagogicaldesignof

theprocess.




R:Manyofthethingscoveredthroughtheresilienceassessment(like

thesystemsunderstanding,framings,etc)itwasnotreallythatmuch

newtome(systemknowledge).Myprimarytake-homewasmoreon

targetknowledge,ontheopera onalside.Knowingwhotheactors

are,howtheyviewthesystem,howtheythinkaboutotheractorsand

trytounderstandwhatarethebarriersandenablingfactorsfortrying

todosomethingaboutthatsystem.Theinsightswereprobablynot

surprisingassuchbuttheyarenewerknowledge.

(Acrossthecasestudies:)Ithasreinforcedhowimportantorcontext-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..How


..When


..What

2/8

(Acrossthecasestudies:)Ithasreinforcedhowimportantorcontext-

specificaresolu onsandstrategiesfortryingtomakebestuseof

greenandblueinfrastructure,andhowtobe erbalancethatcontext-

specificitywithmoregeneralideasofhowwecanunderstand

systems,howwecandesignthemindifferentways.Wehaveseen

acrossthecasesnotonlydifferentsystemsbutalsodifferentpossible

solu ons.Andnotjustalistofimportantthingstoconsiderwhen

tryingtoshi somethingbutthesequen alityofinterven ons(thisis

whereyouneedtostartbecause...)-soabe erideaoncausalityand

designinga(change)process.Thatissomethingourcaseshaveshown

toagreaterorlesserextent.Themixed-methodsandmul -methods

approachesweusedwerequiteusefultothinkabouthowcanwelook

atandaddressaspecificissuethroughmul plelensesands ll

combinetheinsightsfromthem.Thishasbeenachallengebutaswe

arege ngclosetosynthesisthereareanumberofinteres ngthings

wecando,tooffermoretransdisciplinaryperspec vesonanumberof

issuesoralreadyiden fiedchallengesbutwherewecouldadd

addi onalperspec vesordifferentanglestothem.Ithinkthatisa

nicelearningoutcomefromENABLE,whichhasbeenfacilitatedbyour

engagementwithlocalstakeholdersandourinternaldiversityinterms

ofwhatmethodsweuseandhowweaskques ons.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Therewasoneinternalworkshopwithintheresilienceassessment

wherewetriedtobuild-inamul -criteriacomponentwhichdidnot

quiteworkout.Justreflec ngonwhyitdidnotworkoutwasmaybe

themoreinteres nglearningopportunity.Whenthingsworkoutthe

wayyouthought,thatisaposi vereinforcementofwhatyouare

doingbutthethingsthatfail(andthiswasasafe-to-failsitua on)

allowingyoutoreflectuponthem,thatwasinteres ng.Ithastaught

usabouthowtothinkaboutthelogicbehinddifferentmethods,

especiallyonesthathaveasequen ality,andbeawarethatwhen

melinesdonotalignitwillbehardertointegratemethods.Thatwas

averygoodworkshop.

Intermsoffeedback,therewasaseriesofconferencesorone-off

events(notnecessarilywiththestakeholdersengagedinthelonger

process).Theycanbesome mesuseful,some mesconfusing,but

theyallowyoutogetexternalperspec vestoshednewlightonyour

processwhenyouaretoodeeplyembedded.Wedecidedto

accomodateforthat.Ihavebeentryingtonotbetooinvolvedinthe

resilienceassessment(whiletheothertwocolleagueswere)tosupply

adifferentperspec veontheprocessandthedifferentoutcomes.So

recognizingthatdifferentpeoplecan,andmaybeshould,have

differentrolesinthislearningprocess.Thesedifferentroleshave

enabledustohaveadifferentsortoflearningprocessthanifwe

wouldallhaveenteredtheprocesswiththesameambi onsandideas

ofwhatourmandateswere.Atake-homemessagethereisthatyou

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..What

..Why


..How


3/8

ofwhatourmandateswere.Atake-homemessagethereisthatyou

needmorethanonepersontryingtodothesethingsifyouwantto

broadenwhatkindoflearningyoucouldhopetohaveyourself.It

reallyhashelpedforustobethreepeopleonboard.Soaminimumof

twoandoneisnotenoughbecausethenyouwillbeverythinly

stretchedtocoverallthedifferentneedsoftheprocess.Oneofthe

thingswedida erthestakeholdermee nginLodzwastotalk

throughthedifferentperspec vesfromthefacilitatorstotheprocess

ownerstothepar cipants-howtheexpecta onsandthewhole

experiencedifferedthroughthesedifferentroles.





R:Tryingtodiscussourdifferentframeworksanddifferentconcepts

andtermsweranintosomeinteres ngdifferencesintermsofhow

weunderstandconceptsandterms.Some meswemanagedtoreach

somesortofconsensus,inothercaseswejusthadtostepbackand

leavethedifferenceswheretheywere.Ihavelookedforboundary

objectsthatcouldconnectcasestudies.Someofthemhaveworked

andothersapparentlynot.Forexample,therewasadiscussiononthe

frameworkofavailability,accessibility,a rac venesswherewecould

notagreeonthescopeofthea rac venessdimensionandeventually

wehadtodropthediscussion.So,notnecessarilynewtermsbutwe

triedtoopera onalisesomeofthetermsthatwebroughtintothe

project,sohavingadeeperunderstandingofwhatthetermscould

mean.Thatshortlistoftermsishighlyrelevantformeandforcoming

projects-whattobuildonandwhattermsaremostusefultocapture

certainthings,sowhattermscanbeusedforandwhichonesare

moreuseful.

Difficul es(Linksbacktowhatwaspreviouslysaid):Thereisa

constantstruggleintransdisciplinaryprojectsonhowtobestfinda

languagethatallowsyoutodiscussbeyondterms.Ithinkwehave

madesomeprogresstherealthoughitiss llachallenge.




R:Withinthegroup(interdisciplinarywork)ithasbeenmoreonthe

moreabstractleveloftheoriesandhowtheyconnect.Wedidnot

discusswithotherstakeholdersatthatlevelofabstrac on.Muchof

themoreopera onalsideofthings-howprocessesactuallywork,

whataretherealobstacles.Ofcourseyougetareflec onfrom

colleagueswithintheproject,buta"secondhand"reflec on.

Some mesIgetareflec onfromthemonagivensitua onbutthenI

getadifferentreflec onfromtheirstakeholders.Buttounderstand

howthesystemworksandwhyitworksincertainwaysbutIwould

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..How



..What

..Who

..What

4/8

howthesystemworksandwhyitworksincertainwaysbutIwould

saythathasbeenmoreofacombinedlisteningtoprojectmembers

butalsootherstakeholders(primarilystakeholdersinStockholm).In

parallelwithdiscussionswithintheconsor umtherehavebeen

discussionswithotherscien sts(inourins tute,inconferences,orin

othernetworks),discussinginsightsandexperiencesfromENABLEand

fromsimilarprojects.So,moreofascien ficsystemsknowledgefrom

theacademicpartnersandtarget/opera onalknowledgefromother

actorsandsome mesthemoreac on-orientedmembersofENABLE.




R:Therearecertainlyotherpeoplewhoseopinionsandneedsare

relevantforwhatwedidinStockholm.Thefirstconstraintisthat

peopleareverybusy.Sopeoplelikepoli cians,orbusinesshavebeen

hardertoconvince.Otheractorswehavejustnotbeenabletoreach

(likehomelesspeopleorcriminals,whoareaspecificgroupofusersof

greenspace,influencingthefunc onalityandpercep onsofgreenand

blueinfrastructure).Se ngupsuchalearningprocess,thereare

theseissuesoftrust-whocanactuallybeinvolvedfortheprocessto

s llbeconstruc ve.Therearesomereallystrongvestedinterestsin

someproblems,atleastwhenyouhavealimitedamountof meto

gothroughyourprocess.Ifyouinvolvepeoplewithverystrongand

verydifferentopinions(likedevelopersandconserva ongroups)it

couldtakealong mejusttofindcommongroundandstarttobuild

trust.Sowestartedsomewherewherethereisatleastsometrust

alreadybetweentheactors,whichinfluencesorrestrictswhoyoucan

involve.Buteventhereithasbeenproblema cforprac calreasonsto

getthislimitedgroupofpeople,becausesomeofthemdothismore

onaprofessionalbasis,othersmoreonanindividualinterestbasis,

whichmeanstheyhaveverydifferent melines.Othercasestudies

havereachedoutmoretoindividualgroupsindifferentwaysandnot

tryingtobringthegroupstogetherintoonevenue.Thatisadifferent

wayoftryingtohandlethisdiversity,listeningtomul plevoiceseven

thoughasaresearcheryoubecomemoreofanac veinterpreterof

theirinputstotheprocessesinsteadofle ngthemsortthingsout

themselves.Youbecomethemediatororfacilitatorwhichleadsto

differentandmaybeslightlybiasedoutcomes.



R:Ithaselementsofallofthem(planningandmanagement),but

overallthemostrelevantcontribu onishowwedesignthesejoint

learningprocessesorhowwethinkaboutscienceandresearchin

differentwayscaninformprac ce(canbeplanningprac ceor

somethingelse).Thisissomethingwearetryingtogetoutwiththese

policyop ons,wherewetrytothinkaboutwhattypesofknowledge

havewegenerated.Everythingfromthemorefactualthatcould

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..Who

..What

..Who

..How


..Why

5/8

havewegenerated.Everythingfromthemorefactualthatcould

directlyinformcertaintypesofplanningtothingsthataremoreabout

projectdesignorbuildingyourownsolu onsforgoverning(rather

thanplanning)greenandblueinfrastructureasembeddedinalarger

system.Ithinkthatoveralltheconsidera onofhowtobuilda

comprehensiveapproachtobothunderstandingandac velyengaging

withgreenandblueinfrastructureanditsfunc onali esandbenefits,

thatisoverallthemostuseful.Thenwehavespecificpiecesof

knowledgethatcouldbeofinteresttospecificcasesorasetof

specificcasesoraspecifictargetgroup.Butoverallitisthatapproach

tohowtothinkaboutwhatkindofknowledgeweneedandhowyou

couldmakesurethatyouhaveanac veprocessforproducing,

diges ngandmakingreflec veuseofthatknowledge.



R:Star ngfromageneralandvagueideaofhowIwanttodesignand

a empttransdisciplinaryscience,Iamlearningmoreandmorehow

tobothframedifferentthingsandalsowhatarethestrongpointsyou

couldbuildonandnotjustuniformlytrytointegrateorconnect

things,butreallywhatarethemostcri callyneededandalsothe

easiertogetat.Iamdevelopingabe erlanguageandfeellikeIcan

be erdescribeinprojectproposalswhatitisIwanttodo,the

challengeswithit,the medemands,theresourcesneeded,Iam

ge ngmuchbe eratar cula ngwhattransdisciplinaryscienceis

andalsobe erunderstandingwhattypeoftransdisciplinaryscienceit

isIamdoingandIammorecomfortablewith.Thatisdrawingon

everythingthathasworkedandnotworked(oratleasthasbeen

muchmorechallenging).SoIamstar ngtohaveamoreopera onal

ideaoftheactualdesignoftransdisciplinaryscience,notjustthat

everythingshouldbeintegratedbutwhatarethecri calthingsthat

needtobeintegrated,howcantheybeintegratedandhowcanI

describehowtodothatandtheresourcesneeded.ENABLEisjustone

projectinanevolu onarylineoftryingtodeepentransdisciplinary

workandwearelearning,slowly,howtodothingsbe er.Itwillhelp

memakeamoreeffec veuseofmy meinthefuturewhenIhavea

be erideaofwhichthingsaremorelikelytoleadtotheoutcomes

thatIamhopingfor.Thatsaid,itisalwaysgoodtotestnewthings,

becausesome meswhatyouthoughtwouldbethebestalterna ve

maynotbe.

SeealsoQ2.5.




city?

R:Whatwetriedtodowasbreaksomeofthesilos/sectoraldivisions

ofwhodoeswhatintermsofplanningandmanagement.Whatwe

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..Why

..Why


..What

..Why

6/8

ofwhodoeswhatintermsofplanningandmanagement.Whatwe

triedtodowiththeresilienceassessmentwastopointto

interconnectedissuesthattogetherwilldecideonwhatyoucan

expectfromthesystem.Wealsostartedtodiscussdifferentwaysof

doingthat.Butjustbymakingpeoplemoreawareofthatyouhavea

be erbasisforactuallyfindingsystem-basedsolu onsratherthan

individualorspecificcontribu ons,orprojectsthatmightnotmake

muchsense,orini a ves edtoonesectorbutnottootherrelevant

sectors.Ithinkwehavepromotedmoreofasystemsunderstanding

andalsoanunderstandingthatgreenandblueinfrastructureisnot

necessarilyaques onofjustthegreenandbluespacesthemselves,

butverymuchaques onofhowyouthinkaboutthecityandits

inhabitants,aroundthosegreenandbluespaces.Peopledorecognize

thisbutIthinkwherewehelpedisthatweaddedmoredetailand

nuancetothatunderstandingandalsoalanguageforaddressing

thosedifferentconnec onsandthatissomethingthatotheractors

cantakefurther-wele itatafirstfledglingstrategiesfortryingto

movetowardsanaggreedupon,desiredtarget,butwethink

developingthesestrategiesfurtherisnotreallysomethingforusas

researcherstotaketheleadon,butsomethingthatwecouldsupport.

SomethingwethoughaboutforStockholmwashowandwheninthe

processdoyoushi ownershipandroles,whencanscien stsleadand

whenisitbe erforustostepbackandsupportsomeoneelse,

dependingondifferentmandatesandthespecificdesignoutcomesof

aphaseintheproject.WhichisalsousefulIthinkforplanning

processesasnotverysta cortheresponsibilityofonespecificactor,

buthowyoucouldmaybeshi abitmoresmoothlybetweendifferent

actorsanddifferentprocesses.So,intheplanningprocess,maybeat

somestageyoucoulddelegatetosomeoneelsetoo(andIguessthat

happenstosomeextent)butIthinkthereismoretheretodesignabit

moreflexibleprocessesforplanningandthinkingaboutwhattodo

withurbanspaceandtherewehavesupported,notgivinganyfinal

answersbutatleastpoin ngtoawayofdoingthingsdifferentlyand

alsoawayofaddressingmorecomplexitywithinyoursystem.




R:Ihaveaninterestintransdisciplinaryscienceandhowtodo

transdisciplinaryorsustainabilityscience.Wehavehadanumberof

workshopsorexercisesa emp ngataligningmethods,findingways

ofsynthesizinginsights,etcandweareworkingonamoretheore cal

level.ButIwouldhavewantedabitmorefocus,morein-depth

discussiononhowdowebestconnectmethods,theories,frameworks

andsoon.Thatiss llsomethingIampushingfor,foroneofour

papersunderprepara on-amoretheore caldiscussiononhowtodo

transdisciplinaryscienceitwassomethingmaybenotequallyshared

byeachandeveryconsor ummember,somaybewehavenotmadeit

asfarasIwouldhavewanted.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

..What

..Why

..Expectations

7/8



R:IntermsofchallengesIreallyrealized(orreinforced)howdifficultit

istorunadeeplyintegratedtransdisciplinaryprojectwhenyouonly

meetinfrequentlyoreverysixmonthsorso.Itismucheasierwhen

youcanhaveacon nuousdialogueordiscussionwithpeople.Trying

todointegratedstudiesoveradispersednetworkhasbeena

challengeandthatiscertainlysomethingtotakewithmeforfuture

collabora ons-howbigcantheconsor umbe,how ghtlyconnected

isthegroupandbasedonthatwhatisarelevantambi onfor

integra on.

Weareanicemul disciplinaryteambuttherearesomeperspec vesI

wouldhavelovedtohavewithinENABLE,acoupleofviewpointsthat

maybewearemissing,peoplewithadifferentunderstandingofthings

thatcouldhavebeenbeneficialtohaveinthediscussions.Maybein

retrospectitcouldhavebeeninteres ng(althoughtereisanissueof

me)tohavenotonlyourinternalworkshopsbutalsoworkshopswith

otherpeopletojoinusonabroaderdiscussionoftheENABLE

frameworkandhowwedothings.Wehavehaditatsomeofourjoint

conferencesbuttheyhavenotreallybeendedicatedtothisissueand

maybesome mesabittoobig.Itcouldhavebeeninteres ngtohave

aclearerdesignofworkingwithinthecoreteamandthenconnec ng

bothtoalargeracademicworldandtootherstakeholders.

3.2.Couldyouactuallyapplysomeofthenewknowledge/insights/

ideasresul ngfromtheprojectinyourownac vi es(e.g.inother

researchprojects)?

R:Yesforfurtherproposalwri ng.ENABLEisjustoneofotherthings

wedoinStockholmandIbringinsightsfromENABLEtoalltheseother

processes,butalsoinmyinterac onswithotherstakeholders.IfIam

nottheorganiserofworkshopsIcouldbetheexpertmemberof

someoneelse'sprocessandthereIbringinsightsfromENABLE,both

morefactualaboutgreenandblueinfrastructure,butalsoonhowto

thinkaboutco-crea onandknowledgeprocessestothoseprocesses.

Thatisveryuseful.ENABLEcamefromsimilarinsightsfrommul ple

processesanditwillfeedintoasecondgenera onofsimilar

processes.



R:Therearetheclassicsof meandresourceconstraints.These

thingsdotakealotof meandwehaddifferentstar ngpointsacross

casestudies,forexampleinStockholmwehavealongtradi on

ourselvesofworkingtogetherwithothersbutthereisalsoalong

tradi onoftryingtohavesomesortofjointprocessesandexchange

intheSwedishsystem.InLodz,forexampleitisverydifferent.

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37




..Why


..Role of context

8/8

intheSwedishsystem.InLodz,forexampleitisverydifferent.

Differentci es,differentcountrieshaveverydifferentbaselinesor

star ngpoints.Ifthereisnotrustordirectinterestintheseprocesses

youfaceaverydifferentsitua on.Some meswetakeitforgranted

thatpeopleareinterestedinpar cipa ngandthatneednotbethe

case.

Onemainbarrierishowtoreachstakeholderswhodonotsee

themselvesasstakeholders.Whataregoodargumentsforconvincing

themthatthisisaques onthattheybothhaveastakeinandcould

allocatesome meto,ifwewantedtoworktogetherwiththem.We

havebecomebe eratthatbutthereiss llworkneededtofindgood

waysofreachingthroughtodifferentcommuni esordifferent

interests.




R:Iamastrongbelieverinbeingembeddedindifferent

environments.Wehavehadamobilityschemeinplace,whichwould

haveallowedpeopletospendabitmore meindifferent

environments(researchersstaysinpartnerins tutes)andtohavean

extended meperiodofconstantexposuretoanenvironment

differentperspec ves,tonotnecessarilyagreewithbuttounderstand

it.ThoselongerperiodsissomethingwedidnothaveinENABLEandit

couldhavehelped.Manyofthereasonswhywehavethepartnerswe

haveintheconsor umisbecausesomeonehasspentanextended

staysomewhere(withanotherconsor umpartner).

End

34

35

36

37


..Role of context


1/9

STO2




R:Onethingthatwehaveputalotofeffortintowastofinda

languageandcommonali es,becausewe'vehadaverydiversegroup

ofstakeholders,rangingfrompeoplebeingthereontheirfree me

justbecausetheycaredabouttheareaorhadaspecificinterestinthe

area,topeoplewhohadastrategicresponsibility,notnecessarily

beinglocallyanchoredorhavingvisitedthearea,buthadaformal

responsibility.Thatsaid,we'vehadtoworkveryhardtofind

somethingthattheycouldstarttheirdialogueabout.Forusthat

turnedouttobeac vi estakingplaceinthegreen-blueinfrastructure

inthelandscape.Justtocometothatitwasalearningforus.That

startedforthemalsotofeelthatwhatistheac vityasajointtoolfor

themtolearnabouteachother,others'perspec vesandtheproject.

Anotherthingwastheconstantframingexercisesthatwehadtodoto

explainwhatweweredoingandalsoforustolearnaboutthesystem

atthesame mewealsotriedtobeabitaheadoftheprocess.SoI

wouldsaytheframingandfindingcommonboundaryobjectstotalk

about,andnotusetheonesthatarefavouringindifferentgroupings,

sosay,isitredlistofspecies-nothatisnotago,isitecosystem

services-no,notnecessarily,sofindingsomethingthatisneutraland

verygeneric,thatwasonethingwedidinordertofindadialogueand

thenindirectlythatdialogueissupposedlyleadingtolearning,orat

leastexchange.Theframingwaseverythingfromwri nginvita ons,

wri ngdocumenta on,havingthefirstpresenta onatallthe

workshopsthatwehad,I'mtalkingabouttheresiliencethinking

processthatbecamefiveorsixworkshopsandallthesemee ngshave

averycarefulthinkingabouthowwestartthem,howwetalkedabout

thesystemthatwewantedtodiscusswiththeactors.Sousingwords

thatweknowthattheyknowaboutbutalsothenlinkingthemtothe

conceptualframeworkwithintheproject,thatwasaverytrickypart.




R:Oneofthemaininsights,abitsurprisingbutalsoconfirmingthat

theins tu onalbarriersintermsofformaladministra veboundaries

hasahuge,surprisinglylargeimpactinhowpeopletalkaboutvalues.

Wehadthislandscapewherewehavethisformallyprotectedareain

themiddle-thatwasthesetup,andallalongun ltheendtheyhad

veryharddifficul esindiscussingthewholelandscape.Itwasinside

oroutsidethatboundary,itwassostrict,andImeanthewholeoutset

oftheprojectistodiscusstheflows.Ithinkboth[STO1]andIwere

surprisedabouthowdifficultthatwas.TheotherthingthatIlearned

wasalsothat,whenitcomesintheSwedishcontexttonature

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Who

..How

..What

2/9

wasalsothat,whenitcomesintheSwedishcontexttonature

conserva onandgreen-blueinfrastucture,itisaframingaboutthings

thatarenotbuiltinourcity,itiss llverymuchontheconserva on

side.So,theno onofchange-becausethatissomethingwereally

wantedandhopedthatthestakeholderswouldstartthinkingofand

helpustoformulatewhatischanginginthesystemandhowcanwe

thenbuildcapac tytohandlethatchange-thatwassomethingthat

becameveryexternalandabstract,likeclimatechange.Thenwehad

toputalotofeffortintotransla ngthatclimatechange,bigthing,

intosomethinglike"whatwillhappeninthispar cularlandscape".

Andalsotothinkaboutdemographicchanges.Sochangewasvery

difficultandtheins tu onalbarrierswasverydifficultandIwould

addlearnbydoing,learningbymistakesintryingtodeveloptoolsfor

discussingthesethingsalongtheway.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Ifwes cktoourcasestudy,thenIthinkthesmallerse ngswith

morehomegeneousgroupsdiscussingthings,wheretheycouldframe

astoryandthereisnotsomuchonnego a ng,soforexampletalking

withenvironmentalstrategistsfromthemunicipalityorwithinterest

organisa ons,thesesmallerfocusgroupsactuallyhelpedmebe erto

understandthesystem.IfIwouldre-designtheprocessIwould

actuallybemorecarefulinhavingthesefocusgroupsandthengreat

diversityandthenfocusgroupsagain,insteadoftryingtomixthe

perspec vesatallstages.ThatissomethingthatIbringwithmefrom

amethodspointofview.Andmaybealso:oneofourgoalswasto

buildcapacityandthereissomethingwhereyoudiscussthingsin

moreclosedse ngswhereyouhavemoreofasafeenvironment,and

ofcourseitisverytrickyforthemunicipalofficialstositwiththeir

stakeholdersandthenbeheldresponsibleforthings,thiskindof

tensionsintermsofmandateandresponsibility,tohandlethatinthe

mee ngs,whiletheyweregoingon,Ithinkthatimpactedhowfreely

peopletalkedaboutthings.Soweweretoonaiveandambi ouswhen

itcametopar cipa on,Ilearnedthemostaboutthesystemand

aboutthedifferentperspec veswhenweactuallyhadthesefocus

groupsratherthanwhenwehadthesehugediversegroups,because

thenasaresearcherIbecamemoreofafacilitator,anego ator,

pedagogue,communicatorpersonthanactuallysomeonelearning

moreabouttheissueorthesystem.Wehadsomuchfocusabout

beingoverlyinclusiveatallstagesandIwouldnotdothatagain.





R:Star ngfromthela er:theconceptofins tu onshasbeensuper

trickyformethroughouttheprojectandthatcomesfromthe

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..What

..How

..How



..What

3/9

trickyformethroughouttheprojectandthatcomesfromthe

consor umdiscussions,sothedifferentideasaboutins tu ons,that

isonething.Theotherthinghasbeenthetensionsbetweentryingto

understandthesystemandthenalsoaddingtheaspectsofchange,so

itiskindofsimilartothestruggleswehavehadintheStockholmcase,

Ialsoseethemintheconsor um,wherewehavehadalotofthese

"weneedtodescribe,weneedtounderstand,weneedtomapout"

andthenhavehadnotsomuchcapacitytoaddthechangethatis

actuallypartofthecoreoftheproject.Sothathasbeenonething.

ThenabouttheconceptsthatIhavelearned,onethingthats ckedto

mymindwaswhenthemunicipalitydescribed-sowearedealingwith

averycomplexorganisedmunicipality,itishugeandithaslotsof

capacityintermsofmoneycompara vely,buttheyexplainedthata

lotofthechallengeshavetodowiththeinternaldynamicsofthe

municipality,andthenyouhavenotaddedotheractorsatall,justthat

verystrongactor-andtheydescribedusthetoolsthattheyhavejust

tomakesurethattheyknowwhateachandeveryoneisdoing,and

oneiscalled"ledstång"inSwedish,whichisactuallythehandleina

staircase,soevery metheyencountersomekindofconfusion,they

gotothatdocumentwhichclarifieswho(whichdivisionwithinthe

municipality)hastherighttodowhat,andthentheyhavewhatthey

calltheinterface(unclear),whichisabitsimilarbecauseitalsosays

"OKatthisstagetheotherdepartmenttakesoverthisissue",sothey

havetriedtomapoutwhoisresponsibleforwhat,whichisawayto

ar ficiallytrytohandlewickedproblemslikesustainabilityor

landscapegovernanceorflowofpeopleorwhatever,butitisaquick

fixcomparedtochangingtheorganisa onalsetup.So,maybenot

conceptsassuchaswordsbuttheyareintruments,toolsforthe

adapta onbutnotnecessarilyfortheneededchanges.




R:Thewholethingofworkingwithpar cipa on,thishowtodesigna

co-crea on,par cipatory,differentdegreesofinclusiveness,where

researchispartoftheprocess,howtodothat,Ilearnedquitealotin

termsofdo'sanddont's,andalsoyoucanlookatthestakeholdersin

termsoftheircapacitytothinkaboutstrategies,aboutreallyconcrete

localthingsandhowyouneedtorecognizethatandseehowyoucan

workwithitbuts llkeepinginclusive,solotsofinsightsandlearning

abouthowtoworkonpar cipatoryprocesses.Ihadstartedpre-

ENABLEbutforsurethisprocessthatwehavebeenrunningin

Stockholmhasaddedalot.Andcri calreflec onstoo,whatisthis

collabora veapproaches,whatdoesitrequire,howmuch

competenceandevenmorespecifieddifferentcompetencethatis

neededinthat.Sothathasaddedtomyknowledge.AndIwouldsay

thesimilargoesfortheconsor um:howtoworkwithdifferent

epistemologies,ontologies,wherepeoplecomefromdifferent

backgrounds,tradi ons,bothintermsofgeography,historyof

researchindifferentcountriesordifferentuniversitycontextsand

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30


..What

..What

..Who

4/9

researchindifferentcountriesordifferentuniversitycontextsand

whatisthenthecapacitythatdifferentresearchershave,nottosay

thatitismoreorlessbutitisdifferentcapaci es,andhowyouwork

withthat,especiallywiththedifferentresearchershavingdifferent

degreesofin-depthknowledgeaboutthecasesthatyoualsowantto

involve.Soamuchmorespecificandabitcri calthinkingandinsights

regardingthecapacityandcompetenceandhowyouneedtobe

awareofthat.Theotherthingisthepowerofsmall,maybetrivial

ac vi es,sojustamee ngwehadIproposed,couldwecreatea

figureforallthepapersthatwearewri ngandthatisawaytonot

havethatasaproductbutasatool.Soallthetoolsyouneedin

interdisciplinarywork;Irememberwhenwetriedtodecideonalogo-

veryinteres ngprocess,whenwetriedtocreateajointprojectfolder

andthetextwithit,alsoveryinteres ng,thesesmallthingsthatseem

like:canwenotjustleavethistosomecommunica onexperttodo

that?Iwouldrathersaytheopposite:thiscouldbeatthecoreof

star ngtofindacommonnarra veoratleastexplorethediversityof

narra veswithintheconsor um.Andalsothisnotviewingpaper

wri ngprocessesasthefocusontheproduct-ofcoursethatisthe

meritsystemwearein-butalsoseethewri ngprocessasan

interdisciplinarylearning.[STO1]andIhavehadquitesubstan al me

si ngtogetherandIhavetriedtosupporthimintermsof"maybewe

shouldaskthisques on","maybeweshouldclarifylikethis","maybe

weshouldaskpeopleforoneslidewithbulletpointsaboutques ons

theyhave",thesesmall,pedagogicalthingsthatyoucandoinorder

forpeopletonotjusts cktotheirordinarywayofdoingbutactually

tryingtoreachoutandconnect,findingcommonterms.




R:Atallmee ngsIamin,intheStockholmregion,andIhavebeen

workinghereforfi eenyearsorso,thereisalwaysthepoli cians,and

IwouldnotsaythatinthenextprojectIwouldaddthemtoit,

becausetheirrela onstothecivilservantsisalsoaveryintricateone

thatyouneedtobeverycarefulaboutandmakesurethatyouknow

whatyouaredoingasaresearcherifyousetupthatkindof

discussionsordialogues,orinterac ons,butthatisagroupthatwe

seldominvite-thedecision-makers-andtheyareofcoursecrucialif

youarealsoaimingforchangeandcapacity-building,butinawaywe

trusttheofficialstothengraspwhattheycapture,whattheyfeelis

relevantandthenbuildthatintotheirorganisa onorinthe

communica onwiththedecision-makersinawaywetrustthemtobe

thatindirectlinktothedecision-makers.Thatisonegroup.Theother

aspectisthatwehaveachallengetoengagingthepublic,wherewe

gofortheeasy,ordoable,feasibleway,whichistoengagewiththe

interestorganisa ons,andthereislotofengagementinsocietythat

doesn'tnecessarilytaketheformofaverytradi onalSwedish

associa on(likeFacebookgroupsandsoon),andwehavenotyet

foundwaystoengagewiththemandthatisabiggapIwouldsay.We

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..What

..Who


..Who

5/9

foundwaystoengagewiththemandthatisabiggapIwouldsay.We

clearlyhaveanagebiastowardselderlypeopleintheinterest

organisa ons,thosethatactuallyhave meandroomintheirlife,or

areusedtocometothiskindofse ngs.Notnecessarilythatwewant

tocapturethatdiversity,butinawaywecapturedthatthroughother

methods,wehavehadthesepublicdatacollec ons-theQ-method

andthementalmapping-soinawaywehavecapturedthat

informa on.Whatwouldhavebeenfantas cisiftheQ-methodand

mentalmappinghadoccurredbeforeourresilienceprocess,which

wasnotthecase.Inthecomingprojectswhatwouldbegreatisif-we

havelearnedabitmoreabouthowtosetupaseriesofdifferent

methodstoplayout,whatshouldbedonefirstandwhatshouldthen

buildonthat-itwouldhavebeenfantas ctohavethatmaterialto

buildtheresilienceassessmentprocesson,butthatwasnotthecase.



R:OnthelargerpictureIwouldsaytheapproachthatwehavein

ENABLEisbasedonsystemsthinkingandoverandoveragainI

encounteredhowgreatknowledgeisproduced,communicated,used

andthenconfusionwhyitisnotworkingoutandIseethis

contextualiza on,soevenifitisdifficult,evenifitisfuzzy,thesystem

thinkingisanimportantcontribu onandnotasaproductbutasa

processtoconstantlybepartofandremindingdifferentdiscussions,

dialogues,mee ngs,beingitinBrusselsorinFla enlandscapeabout

thesystemthinking,thatIthinkisaveryimportantcontribu onfrom

thisconsor umandothersimilarconsor a.Then,whatwe

contributedtoverymuch,andtheactorssaythatintheirevalua ons

andfeedback,[STO1]andIinourprojectsinStockholmweprovidea

pla ormforthesestakeholderstomeetanddiscussthingsthatthey

normallydonothaveroomfordiscussingintheirdailyworklife

context.Thatisinteres ngbecauseitisnotnecessarilysomethingyou

thinkthatresearchorresearchprojectsshoulddo,oristhatreallyour

task,butitisjustthewayitis.Weallowtheseactorstoactuallyget

somespaceforthinkingoutsidetheirimmediatehereandnow

problem-solving,handlingfireshereandthere.JusttheconferenceI

a endedthepastdaystherewaslotofapprecia on:youcreatedthis

spaceforustoli ali lebitandlookatthingsinanotherway.Foran

allotmentgardenerinFla entomeetwithagreeninfrastructure

planner,thereareveryfewotherpla ormsforthattohappenand

createthatlisteningandlink.Thenitisuptothemtoseewhatthey

wanttodo,butatleastitishappeningbecausewearerunningthese

differentkindsofworkshops.AndthenIthinkwehaveavery

importanttaskhereasresearcherstocon nuouslydevelopour

thinking,ourdifferentepistemologiesbutatthesame mebeopen

toatleasttrytounderstandothersandthatIthinkweneedtohave

be ertoolsfor.ImeanintheENABLEprojectwewouldhavereally

neededsomeprocessfacilita ngcapaci es,someoneresponsiblefor

ourmee ngs,ourinterac ons,whoknowswhatresearchisabout,so

itisnotlikeamanagerbutmorelikearesearcher'sfacilitator

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Who

..Why


6/9

itisnotlikeamanagerbutmorelikearesearcher'sfacilitator

competence,tohelpuswithposters,models,paperwri ng,tohelpus

spreadtheword,listening,thiskindofthings.Wetriedtoorganize

theseprocesseswithstakeholdersbutweareratherbadindoingit

internallyinmostofthecases,becausewedonotaddthattothe

budgets.



R:AsIsaidwehavethisverystrongdiscourseofconserva onon

natureanddensifica onontheurban.Theknowledgeweare

providingistoshowcasethatweneedtomovebeyondthatandwe

havestartedadiscussionabouthowtomovebeyondthatdichotomy.

ThatissomethingthatisneededandatleastIthinksomeofthe

actorsthatwehaveinvolvedwithfinduseful.Andforusitis,together

withthem,tryingtobridgethatdichotomyandchangetheideaof

land-useorins tu onalarrangementinthecity.Ithinktheinsightwe

havefromtheENABLEprocesscouldcontributealottothefuture

researchprojectsthatareaimingforworkingfromasystemsthinking

star ngpoint,becausewehavelearnedalotthatcouldbeusefulfor

themtonotdothesamemistakeandmovefurtheralongthelines

thatwefoundsuccessful.Soalsoaclearmessageforthefunding

agenciesatEuropeanandna onalleveltoreallywhatinterdisciplinary

researchcanbeaboutandwhatdifferentpartsareneeded,like

facilita on,moremee ngsmaybe,othercapaci esthannormal

researchprojects.SothoseareotherstakeholderswhoIthinkwould

benefitfromwhatwehavedone.




city?

R:Notsomuchaboutnewknowledgeornewinsightsbutmoreabout

theprocessthattheprojectallowedandtheaspectofchange(that

thesystemwillchange).So,whenIshowedamapshowingthe

thousandsofnewhousesordwellingsaroundorinthegreen

infrastructurethatistheretoday,andthenassistthedifferentactors

starttothink"whatwillthismeaninfive,ten,twenty,fi yyears?"And

alsoregardingtheseac vi es.So,theprocessandtheno onof

change,becausethechangeisnewintheStockholmcontext,thatthe

green-blueinfrastructurewillchangeandbeimpactedbychange-

demographic,economic,governancechanges,climatechange,

environmentalchange.Andalsostarttounpackwhatisthis

"parkifica on"thatItalkabout,whatisthisclimatechange,whatis

thissegrega on,becauseitisratherimatureamongthepeople

workingwithgreen-blueinfrastructure,nottosayitisimmature

amongotherstakeholderswhoworkwithsocialsustainability,or

climatechange,butforthegreen-blueinfrastructurepeoplethenitis

rathernewgrounds.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Why


..Why


..Why

..What

7/9




R:IfIthinkaboutthedifferentworkpackagesandthinkabout

differentthemes,Iclearlyseethatwehaveworkaroundjus ce,

aroundresilience,butadreamwouldhavebeentolearnaboutjus ce

andresiliencetogetherandwedidnotreallyreachthat.Ithasbeenso

muchworkjusttolinkgreen-blueinfrastructurejusttothesetwo

dimensions.Youalsoclearlyseenowthatwehaveaspecialissueon

jus ceandwehaveanotheronewiththeENABLEconceptual

framework,whichwillincluderesilienceandmethodsandmethod

integra on.Thatsaysalot,thatwehavenotcomethatfar.Mycore

researchisaboutgovernanceandthathasnotbeen-thatwasfrom

thestartsoIcannotsayIexpectedit-butIwouldhavebeenableto

contributemoreifwehavehadthatbroaderideawiththegovernance

andnotjusttheins tu ons.Ihaveoutletsforthatinotherprojects,

buts llIthinkitisabitcu ngoneofmyarmsoff.Anditpopsupin

thepolicyop ons,policymapping,butithasnotbeensomuchpartof

theresearchbutmoreofthebackgroundlandscapingdescrip onand

thenitisthereandwetrytofeedintoit,butithasnotbeenresearch

assuch,aspartofhowweunderstandthesystemandthathasbeen

frustra ng.Icanimaginethatothersfeelthesamebecausetheirarms

havealsobeencutoffindifferentwaysthatIdonotknowabout,

becauseIdonotknowthattheme(likeeconometricsormodelling,or

whatever).Ithinkthosearethetrade-offsthatwedowhenwedo

interdisciplinaryresearch.Itistough,butitisalsohowitneedstobe,

becauseyoucannotreallyaddthein-depthofallthedifferentaspects.

Anotherthing,onamoreprac calnote,whichhastodowith

learning:wehadlotsofhopesandaddedtotheproposalthatwe

wantedpeopletositindifferentcontexts,visi ngeachother,likein-

residentPh.D.studentsorpost-docsandwehadthismobilitymoney

andithasbeenreallyhardtosetthatmoneyintoac on.It'sabit

surprisingandabitdisappoin ngthatwehavenothadthis

opportunityofyoungscholarsvisi ngdifferentareas,becauseIthink

thatisaveryfrui ulwayoflearningandunderstandingandexchange.

ThathasbeenmuchharderthanIthought.



R:Thatstakeholderinterac onisverycontext-dependent.Itisnot

rocketsciencetounderstandthat,buttoreallysee,visi ngLodz,

si nginthecityhallandreallyseehowarecolleaguesnavigatethat

context,comparedtohowwedoitinStockholm,orwhenwesatat

themee nginHalle,thatisaveryimportanttake-homemessagefor

me,toreallyunderstandwhatitmeansforinterac ve,

transdisciplinaryresearchwithmul plecasestudiesindrama cally

differentcontexts.Anditisveryvulnerablesinceitisdependanton

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Expectations


..Role of context


8/9

differentcontexts.Anditisveryvulnerablesinceitisdependanton

poli calprocessesinthesedifferentcontexts,sosayyouhavean

enablingcontextinBarcelona,inStockholmaswellsofarbutwealso

hadanelec oninbetween,whichwasabitscary.InLodztheyhadto

strugglenearlyonaweeklybasis,withdifferencesonhowthe

approacheswereandpeoplewan ngornottopar cipate.Thatisa

veryimportanttake-homemessage.Theotheroneisthatthereare

bothintheinterdisciplinary(withintheconsor um)andthe

transdisciplinaryway,thiscarefulnessofframing,finding

commonali es,thesmalltoolsthatcanhelpyoutofindcommon

grounds.Tofocusonthatisanothertake-homemessageIthink.When

itcomestoStockholm,theneedtoconstantlyreflectontheroleof

theresearcher,becausewehavehardcoreexpertsasstakeholders,so

whatisthentheroleoftheresearcherwhentheycomewithmuch

morein-depthdatathanwecanprovidewithintheproject.Andthen

weneedtomakesurethatwearerelevantinwhatwearedoing,

otherwisetheywillnotpar cipate.Insomeofthecasestudieswe

startedoffwithmapping,herewehadfirsttohaveadialoguewiththe

stakeholders,aboutwhatisthestate-of-the-artwhenitcomesto

understandingthesystem,becauseitisnotinourownership.



R:Thelevelofabstrac on.IcannotreallytaketheENABLEconceptual

modelandtrus ngthatitreallycomesthroughtoourstakeholders.It

needssomuchmoreconcretenessandillustra veexamples.Thatisa

verystrongbarrier.Then,thestakeholdersarealsoformedindifferent

languages,whichmeansthatyoualsoneedtoadjustwhatyouare

sayinginrela ontothisdegreeofabstrac oninrela ontothewords

theyareusing,sothestorycanbeverydifferentdependingonthe

stakeholderyouaretalkingto,orwanttocommunicateto.Sincethis

isaresearch-drivenprojectanditisnotco-designedmorethanthe

factthatweknowforourcasestudythatthesearerelevantissues,

butitisnotnecessarilyrelevantor melytodiscussthem,meaning

thattherearehugetrade-offsyouneedtodoinordertobecomeand

stayrelevantforthestakeholders.Ithinkinsomepartstheyhave

muchmoreexchangewithconsultancieswheretheyhavean

assignmentwheretheysaywewantyoutoinves gatethisandwe

wanttohavethisproduct.Sotheygototheecologicalconsultancies

togetthat.Whyengagewiththefuzzynessofresearcherswhoare

exploringwhiletheyarerunningaprocess.That'sahugebarrieras

well.Sofindingyourrole,whatistheroleofresearchinaveryexpert-

drivenregionlikeStockholm,wheretheconsultantsarePh.D.'s.Itisa

verythinlinebetween[STO1]andmebeingresearchersor

consultantsinsomesense.




24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Role of context



9/9

R:Iwouldsetupateamincludingprocessdesigner,facilitatorand

communicator.Meaningdifferentcompetences,itcanbetwoorthree

peoplebutwiththatsetupofcompetences.Andthenletthe

researcherbemoreofaresearcherthantryingtoembraceallthose

roles.Inthebeginningsetoutwhatlearningareweaimingfor.And

alsofindingwaystoveryearlyon,withoutlosingtrust,askingwhat

expecta onsarethere,itisabalancetherebecauseifyouaretoo

openandaskwhatdoyouwantorwhatdoyouexpectthentheactors

think"theydon'tknowwhattheyaredoing",soyouneedtoframeit,

butontheotherhanditisnecessarytoknowwhatarethe

expecta onsifyouaimforlearning.Sohaveastrategyforlearning,

paralleltotheresearchthatisgoingon.



researchprojects)?

R:BeforeIstartedinENABLEIworkedinanotherprojectandI

referredmany mestowhatwedidinthatproject,whenwewrote

theproposalandalsoalongtheway.Weo enaskedourselveshow

thingsweredoneinthatprojectandhowcouldwedoitinENABLE.I

ampre ysurethatthesamewillhappeninmycomingproject

proposalwri ngandiftheygetfundedIwillcomebacktoENABLE

andhowwedidthings.Onethingthatcouldbeverybeneficialforus

researcherswhoareaimingattheseverycomplexresearchand

knowledgeprocessesistofindtoolsforourselvestocapturethis,like

havingthisinterviewgotmethinkingaboutthingsthatIwouldnot

necessarilyhave meorroomoracknowledgedthatIwouldneedto

reflectupon.BecauseifIhavethatself-reflexiverou nethatwould

makethistransferofexperiencesandinsightsbetweenprojectsand

processesmoreclearandvisibleformeandmaybeforothersaswell.

End

27

28

29

30


..Why


1/5

LOD1




R:ForusIthinkthatthemostimportantwerethemee ngswith

stakeholdersandopportuni estolearnfromthemandtoensurethat

theylearnsomethingfromuswererelatedtothepresenta onsofour

research.Weorganizedsuchmee ngstwiceandweinvitedpeople

fromthedifferentlocalauthori es,mostlylocalauthori eslikethe

municipalplanningofficeandgreenspacemanagementauthorityand

someotherdepartmentsofthecityofficewithwhomwediscussed

whatweweredoingandthenwesoughtaddi onalques onsfrom

themandinawaytheyinformedourresearchbutatthesame me

theyhadtheopportunitytolistentowhatweareactuallydoing,

whichIthinkisverygoodandweareplanningtodosomesomething

likethisinthefutureaswelltosharefindingsofourworkwiththe

localauthori esbecauseingeneralwemostlypublishourworkonly

inEnglishandeventhoughitmightbeofinteresttothelocal

stakeholderstheyaredefinitelynotreadingacademicpapersandto

someextenteverythingislostfromtheperspec veoflocal

developmentssointhiswaywewereabletotellatleastali lebitto

themsothattheyknowwhatwearedoingandhowthismaybeof

usefortheirworkandIthinkthatbasedonthesemee ngswehad

somefurthercollabora onswithsomeofthesestakeholderswhich

wasanaddi onalbenefitofthiscollabora onandmutuallearning.

Timing:OnewasIthinkDecember2018andtheotherwasNovember

2019




R:Ofcoursewelearnallthe meandtheprojectofferedusthe

opportunitytolearnbutit'snotveryclearwhatpar cularlywasthe

resultofthisprojectandnotofsomeotherworkthatwehadatthe

same mebutintermsoflearningIwouldsaythatforthefirst me

weweredoingthisexercisewithstakeholdersthatweinvitedthemto

mee ngswherewepresentedourresearchandIthinkthisis

somethingthatwelearnedisveryusefulandthatwewouldliketodo

inthefutureaswell.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Ithinkwecouldlearndifferentthingsfromdifferentkindsof

mee ngsdependingontheaudiencesanddependingontheformat

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..2-way learning

..Who

..How


..What

..How

..Who

2/5

mee ngsdependingontheaudiencesanddependingontheformat

ofthemee ng.Imen onedthemee ngsthatwereorganizedby

ourselvesthatwererela velysmallandinwhichwehadclosest

interac onwiththestakeholdersandthat'swhytheyinmyopinion

offeredusthebestopportuni esforlearningbothtousandtothe

stakeholdersbutontheotherhandwealsohadthismee ngwiththe

localauthori eswithintheENABLEannualmee ngandthatwasof

coursealsoanimportantmee nginthatwecouldmeetsome

stakeholderswhomwehavenevermetbeforebecauseweinvited

thembroadlybutthepeoplewhocametothatmee ngwereinreality

nottheoneswithwhomweareworkingonamoreregularbasis

becausesomeins tu onsforexamplesentinternsandneversent

representa vesbuttheyonlypar cipatedpart- meinthismee ng

(theworkshopofstakeholdersorganizedduringtheannualmee ng).

Sothat'swhyI'mmen oningthesesmallermee ngswithinwhichwe

hadthemostdirectcontactwiththestakeholdersasthemost

importantones.





R:Thetermenvironmentaljus ceisnewtostakeholdersinLodzso

whenwewerereferringtoenvironmentaljus cethiswassomething

newtothemandthentheyprobablylearnedsomeothertermsfrom

usbutI'mnotsurewelearnedanythingintermsofnewtermsor

jargonasresearchers.

Difficul es:oneofthebiggestchallengesthatweseeinthisprojectis

theunderstandingofthebasictermssuchasavailability,accessibility

anda rac venessofurbangreenspacesorgreenandblue

infrastructure.ThereasonI'mmen oningthisisthatdifferentteams

intheprojectusedthesetermsdifferentlyanditisthechallengethat

wearenowaddressinginwri ngthisjointpaperonbarrierswherewe

havetodealwiththedifferentdefini onsthatwedevelopedorused

withintheprojectinourownteamsandsomehowbringthemto

somecommongroundsoIthinkthisisaverygoodexampleofwhere

thisexchangebetweendifferentprojectpartnerswaspar cularly

insigh ulforall,ourselvesincluded.




R:InLodzthereistheideatoorganizetheHor culturalexposi onin

2024andthereisaspecificteamworkingwithinthecityofficeonthis

topictheyfiledtheapplica ontotheInterna onalOrganiza on

Bureauofexposi onsthatdealswiththiseventandthentheywere

flyingtheworldovertopromoteLodzasacandidateforthis

exposi onandeventuallytheyseemtohavesucceeded.The

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..How

..Who

..What


..Who

3/5

exposi onandeventuallytheyseemtohavesucceeded.The

organiza onhasagreedthattheexhibi onin2024isheldinLodz.

Theys llarenotsurewhethertherewillbeenoughfundingforthis

fromthegovernmentandfromthelocalauthori esbutthereis

alreadygreenlighttoorganizethingsandthereisquitealotof

investmentinthisdirec on.Butthisteamiscomposedofpeoplewho

arefromacompletelydifferentworldandtheyarereallyreluctantto

workwithusandtheyarequiteimpolitetobefrankinthewaythey

treatusaswellandIthinkthatthisisateamwithwhichweshould

probablyworkbutwesomehowdon'twanttowork,werefrainfrom

workingwiththem,whichisachallengebecausetheyseemtobe

overtakinggreenspaceandissuesinLodznowgiventhatthiseventis

seenassuchpriorityfortheauthori es.It'sjustthatthereisan

ins tu onthatisresponsibleforabigforthcomingeventwithwhom

wedon'thavegoodcontactsbecausetheyarenotinterestedinlocal

knowledgeandresearchtheyareusedtoworkinginacompletely

differentwaywhentheywanttohavesomethingdonetheyinvitebig

consul ngcompaniestoworkontheseissuesandthewaythebig

consul ngcompaniestypicallyworkistoconsultusaslocal

stakeholderstodevelopthesolu onssowetypicallyrefusetowork

withthesebigconsul ngcompaniesandthisleadstoasitua onin

whichtheyconsultotherstakeholderswhoarenotfromLodzwho

definedesignsolu onsforourcitywhichisamessreallybutthisis

howthesepeopleworktheyareusedtoworkinthisway.



R:Thereareacoupleofthingslikethisoneisthatwehaveanother

projectcalledsociotopemapforLodz(asociotopemapisamapof

differentsocialfunc onsofpublicgreenspacesinourcity)andwe

developedthisourselvesbutincollabora onwiththelocalauthori es

andwesawsomeinterestontheirpartinthisprojectandwehope

thatatsomepointtheywillbeusingthismapanditissomethingthat

couldsupportcommunica onwithinhabitantsandthiscouldalso

supportpublicins tu ons’managementprac ces,becauseit'sall

digi zed,it'ssomethingthattheyhaveneverhadindigitalformatthey

alwaysonlyusethisinpaperfilesandeveryofficehadaseparate

paperfilefordifferentthingsrelatedtodifferentgreenspaces.Now

theyhaveeverythinginonefolder,inoneelectronicmap.Another

thingisthatwesomehowstartedtoinformthelocalauthori eson

differentgreenspaceavailabilityandaccessibilitystandardsandthey

seemtohavebeenveryinterestedinwhatwe'vedone.Thisiswhat

weknowfromthosemee ngsandtheyreallywanttodevelopsome

toolstobeabletoplangreenspacesbe erinresponsetotheneeds

ofthesocietyintermsofwheregreenspacesaretosa sfytheneeds

ofthepopula on.Andthenthethirdthingisrelatedtotheworkof

[colleaguename]primarilyand[colleaguename]tosomeextentas

wellandit'saboutchildrenandtheirwaytoschool.Theywere

workingonwhetherchildrenontheirwaytoschoolareexposedto

greenspacesortogreenspaceviews,especiallywhentheyhaveto

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Who


..Why

4/5

greenspacesortogreenspaceviews,especiallywhentheyhaveto

walktoschoolratherthanbedrivenbycarandtheyandthelocal

authori esespeciallyfromthemunicipalplanningofficearereally

interestedinthisinthewaytheymodelleditandinthewaythey

studieditingeneralIthinkthattheymaybeinterestedinusingthe

sameproceduresfordevelopingsomebroadergreenspace

accessibilitystandardsnotjustrelatedtogreenspacessuchasparks

orgreensquaresandforestbutalsotoverysmallgreenspaceslike

streetsidegreenery.Thesearethemostrelevantexamplesfromthe

perspec veofwhatwehadtotransfertothelocalauthori es.Ithink

thatthisissomethingthattheybenefitthemostandtheareasin

whichwehavethelargestopportunitytoreallyhaveanimpacton

localstakeholderswiththisspecificproject.




R:Iwouldsaythattheprojectmetmyexpecta onsI'mhappywithit

andtheonlythingthatIwouldprobablywanttohappendifferentlyis

tohavemoreconsistencybetweenthecasestudies.Ithinkitwould

havebeenevenbe erifwedefinedverysimilarthings,verysimilar

sub-projectsineachofourcasestudiesandwereabletoworkon

theminparallel,thenthefindingswouldprobablybemore

informa veforeachothercasestudynowIfeelthateveryonewas

workingon,ingeneral,similarthingsbutslightlydifferentornot

slightlybutverydifferentandbecauseofthistheopportuni esfor

mutuallearningarenotasbigastheycouldhavebeenhadeveryone

workedonmuchmoresimilarthings.



R:Aprojectsuchasthisoffersusaleveragebecauseevenfromthe

perspec veofourworkwithlocalstakeholdersit'snotthatweare

justcarryingoutsomeprojectsandthingsthatwedesignourselves

andwewanttojuststudyonourownbutit'sapartofabigger

endeavor.It'scarriedoutincollabora onwithseriouspartnersfrom

abroadsoeveninlightofourownworkherelocallyitprovides

leverageandpeopleperceivethisworkdifferentlyiftheyknowthat

someonedidasimilarstudy,asimilarworkisbeingcarriedoutin

Barcelona,inHalle,inStockholmandsoon,soIthinkthisisreallya

bigadvantageofworkinginaprojectfromtheperspec veofworking

withlocalstakeholdersbutofcourseforusasresearchersitisalso

veryimportanttoworkwithotherresearchersandtoseehowyou

work,whatdoyoudoandhowdoyousolveproblemsrelatedtolack

ofdataorinsufficientdata,towhatmodelsyouuseandsoon,sothis

mutualexchangeisalsoextremelyimportantforusasresearchers.



16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Why

..Expectations



5/5


researchprojects)?

R:Wedefinitelywanttoworkongreenspaceavailability,accessibility

anda rac venessfurtherandIthinkthisissomethingthatwestarted

withinENABLEandwewanttocon nuethisworksoitisalegacyof

thisproject.



R:SeeQ2.11




R:Iwouldtrytohavemoreconsistencybetweentheworkcarriedout

indifferentci essotoensurethattheworkisreallysimilarand

comparable,directlycomparable.Ithinkthatthiswouldbe

interes ng.Iwouldinsistthatweworkonmoresimilarthings

togethersothatwecanmoredirectlywork,preparesomejoint

papers,inwhichwecomparethesitua oninthesameregardin

differentcontexts,thiswillprovideabroaderoverviewofchallenges

relatedtosomethingsandopportuni estosolvedifferentproblems,

likeIknowthatinthenordiccountriesinOsloandStockholmthe

colleaguesworkedoratleastdiscussedtheideaof“whitespace”

(relatedwithsnow)sotheyfoundacommontopictheyaddressedit

andtheytriedtodiscussitfromthedifferentperspec vesofnordic

countriesyouknowwhitespace.Thiswastomeanexampleofajoint

ini a vethatwasrelatedtotheprojectandsomehowdirectly

connectedtosomeprojectpartnerswithregardtoexactlythesame

thing.

End

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Why



1/5

LOD2




R:Answersareali lebittrickybecausewehadsimultaneouslytwo

projectswhichweremoreorlessfocusedonthesame.SoinfactIdid

notdivideittoomuchintoinbetweenprojects.Sowhathappened

wasthatwhentheotherprojecthadsomerequirementstolearn

somethingortoteachsomethingwejustorganizedtheevent.Soit

waskindofmixednotnecessarilyen relyENABLEmessagesorhabits.

Itwasmoreliketoconvenethemessagewhichwasneededatthe

moment.UnderbothprojectsIwouldsaythatweusedmostly

opportunityforhavingworkshopsandcourseswithstakeholderswho

aremostlydecisionmakers.Butwetriedalsotoaddressci zensand

herebothinhabitantsandNGOs.

Stages:NotreallybecauseourworkasCenterstartedin1997.Sofor

usit'sjustcon nuousprocess.Sowhateverourprojectsit'sjusttrying

tocon nuesomesequenceofmessagesandknowledgewhichbestfit

themomentumandthemomentumisusually(unfortunately)related

tosomeac onsinthecitywhichraiseeithercontroversiesorkindof

uneasinessofpeople.Orsome mesit'sjustwhenwehaveanewset

ofdecision-makerswhoneedtolearnsomethingimmediately.Likewe

hadelec onsayearagosowekindofstartedfromthescratchin

somesenseandthennowwehaveanewdepartmentofecologyand

climate.Soit'sagainali lebitgoingbacktorepeatsomemessagesat

thecitylevel.Sothereisacon nuousprocess.




R:Wespentsome meonneedsofourci zensregardingBlue-Green

Infrastructure.Butdefinitelyweneverworkedtoomuchonjus ce

issues.Sothisissomethingwhichwaskindofnewandthiswasalso

thefirst mewhenwelookedcloserataccessibilityofspaces.So

theseweretwothings.AndthethirdoneIwouldsayis:Evenifweare

somehows llintheprocessofresilienceassessmentwegotali lebit

moreknowledgeofwhatisitabout.



learnedfromeachofthem?

R:Definitelyfromconsor umyes.Regardingotherissuesrathernot.I

wouldsaythatwemostlyactasproviderofinforma onand

knowledgethanwegainsomethingreadingfromoutside.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30


..How

..Who

..When

..What

..Who

2/5



havelearnedthemost?

R:As[LOD1]representsmostlythesideoftheprojectandwork

package,Irepresentmorethesideofthecityanddemosidea.SoI

don'tthinkasacitywehadtoomuchcontactwithotherci es.I

wouldsayalmostnone.Soitwasali lebitisolatedascase.Sowe

providedinforma ontoworkpackagesbutIdon'tfeelhavingmuch

exchangebetweentheci es.So,itwasmorethroughtheac vi es

takingplaceinLodz.

SeealsoQ3.1





R:Idon'tthinkIfacedsomethinglikethatbecauseweworkmoreor

lessinthesameenvironment-also,manyofthepeopleforalonger

me.Sotherewerenotmuchmismatchesinbetween.Iwouldonly

saythatregardingresilienceassessmentitwasali lebiteyeopening

becauseIthinkthatusuallywekindofmessbetweensustainability

andresiliencewhichmaynotnecessarilymeanthesame.Imean

sustainabilityisalwaysposi veandresiliencemaysome mesreflecta

realitysowedon'tacceptasecologistoryouknowotherspecialists.

ButIdidnotreallyexperiencethiskindofdifferentunderstandingof

issues.




R:Well,IthinkthatENABLErantoomuchasscien ficproject-evenif

wehaveci esin.Soformewemaybemissedthisinputfromatleast

decision-makers.Sowecouldgetmorefromci esandlearnas

scien stsmorefromthosewhodealwithreali es,notonlythe

scien ficapproach.AndIthinkthatalsomaybedirectinterac on

betweenci escouldbebeneficialfortheproject.



R:Iwillnotdiscoveranythingspecialbecausebasicallyforspa al

planning...whichisnotbadbecauseforyearswearetryingtojust

buildupargumentsforacertaintypeofplanningagainstothertypes

ofplanning.Sowitheachprojectwetrytomakeonestepfurtherjust

toprovidemoreevidence.AndfromthispointofviewENABLEwas

veryimportantbecausewemanagedtopullatleastsomedata,some

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..How

..Expectations

..What


..Who

..Expectations

..Why

3/5

veryimportantbecausewemanagedtopullatleastsomedata,some

informa onaboutBlue-GreenNetwork.



R:Weares llintheprocessofanalysinginforma onandhopefully

wewilldeliversomemoreoutputssoon.Firstofall,welearnedsome

newmethodologieslikeBlueGreenFactorcouldbeoneofthose

whichwecanpromotethroughoutthecityorfordifferentreasons

andpurposes.Anotherthingwhichiscity-specificwheredatawere

neverreallypulledtogethertogetkindofmoreholis cpictures.So

it'salwaysimportanttobuildthispicturejusttohavealookatthecity

assuchandthendigintopar cularissues.SoENABLEwasimportant

alsoforthatreason.Sohopefullywemanagetoanalyzeali lebit

moreaboutecologicalproper esofblue-greennetworkandclimate

regula onandalsotheseplanningop ons.Andasweareallthe me

intheprocessofwri ngnewproposalssoofcourseit'sapiecefor

otherprojects.




R:Ithinkthatingeneraltheprojectmetmyexpecta onsregardinga

kindofoverviewofmethodologiesandthingswhicharedonein

differentplacesandhowtheyaredone.Sofromthispointofviewyes.

Whatwasnotreallymetwasmyexpecta ontocollaboratemorewith

otherci esandtohavemorejointcompara veanalysisandtohave

morethingswhicharerealoutcomeoftheproject.Becausemany

thingswhichwedid,wedidourselvesinthecity.Butlet'ssayIcould

dothishavinganotherprojectwithabitofmoney.Butintheproject

youalsoexpecttobuildsomethingtogether.AndImissedali lebit

this"together".Sosomethingwhichwouldtacklealltheci esand

analyseallcommonali esordifferencesorso.Thisjointwork

happenedinalimitedwaybetweentwoorthreeci esonly,whileit

couldbeamorebroadscale.



R:Whatwasmen onedinQ2.11andIwouldsayifweagreedon

commonmethodologiesandthenappliedtheminalltheci esto

gatheracertaintypeoftheinforma onandtomakecomparison,all

teamsandalltheci eswouldgettoacertainlevelofknowledgeand

exper se.Whileifwesharedmethodologyonlytotacklecertain

aspectsitmeansthatsomeci esdidnotfit,Idon'tknow,greenroofs

orsomethingelsebecauseci esaredifferent.Andthereforewehad

nopossibilitytousecommonmethodologytogetthekindofcommon

results.Soitwass llinteres ngbutitwasnot,Iwouldsay,likethe

trainingforusandforci es.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..Why

..Why

..What

..Expectations


4/5




R:SeeQ3.3.It'salwaysnicetohavepartofworkwhichisbuilton

specificityofthecity.Sothiscanbedonejustseparatelylookingat

goodexamples.Butthenthereshouldbepartwhichiscommonand

somethingwhichisappliedeverywhereacrossscalesandwecangeta

similarresulttoposi onourselvesintheseotherci esandprocesses

andsoon.SoIwouldsaythatthispushformorejointworkwouldbe

veryprofitable.Inanotherproject,forexample,learningabout

Bayesianbeliefnetworkandhowtouseitwasmucheasier.Itwasnot

somuchcommonlearningandcapacitybuildingwithinENABLE.In

factthiswassomethingwhichwasdelegatedtoanotherproject

togetherwithourworkers.Itwasmoreaboutteambuildingand

buildingthecapacitytotacklesameproblemsacrossalltheci es.



R:It'sdifficulttosayonemessage.Whatwasgoodandinteres ngand

maybeImisseditforotherci es:IlearnedalotfromthevisitinHalle

whenweallsawtheprocesseswhichgoonthereandhowtheyare

tackledinalife-worldlikehowthecommonspaceisbuiltandsoon.

SoIlearnedalotfromexperienceandImissedthesameexamples,for

examplefromBarcelona.Soitwouldbenicetohavethesame

overview.Andanotherthingwhichiskindoftake-homemessageis

thiskindof...I'mecologistbyeduca on.Andthesitua onputmeand

ourteamintheroleofdefendersofnature.Soevenifwetrytokeep

thediscussionaboutnatureinthecityandecosystemservicesopen

weareexpectedevenbyci zensandbythecitytobedefenders.And

IwouldsaythattalkingtotheteamfromStockholmandOsloand

Hallemadeusmoreresilient,accep ngdifferentviewsandtryingto

findoutagoodwayoutofseeingthevarietyofexpecta onsandalso

varietyofknowledgepeoplehaveandthewaytheyusethis

knowledge.Sothereisnoonetrajectorytowardsacertainaim.Maybe

weneedtofindoutdifferentwaystogettothesamepointwhichwe

wouldliketogetwhilewetrytobemorerigidnormally.ThisiswhatI

wouldliketosay.Wegiveupali lebitfromourrigidityalthoughasI

said,thisisalsotherolewhichwasprescribedtousnotnecessarilyby

ourselvesbutalsofromexpecta onsofotherplayersandother

stakeholders.



R:Iwouldlovetoknowwhatotherslearned.Whatwasthevarietyof

perspec vesofteammembers.BecauseveryearlyIgotthe

impressionthatalsotheci esandteamswithinENABLEhavedifferent

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

..How

..Expectations

..How


..Previous collaboration

5/5

impressionthatalsotheci esandteamswithinENABLEhavedifferent

historyofcollabora on.Sosometeammemberswereclosertoeach

otherbecausetheycon nuedsomeissuesfrompreviousprojectsand

somelikeourcityforexampleanduswerenot.SoIamreally

interestedin,let'ssay,asbeginnersinthisgroupwhatwasthe

perspec veofthosewhositthereforlonger meandalready

managedtoanalyzemuchmorebecauseourcityinmanyprojectsisa

kindofnewcomernotthatwedidn'thaveprojectsearlierbutinterms

ofmissinginforma onandknowledgegapswhichsome mesweneed

tobuildreallyfromthescratch,whileinotherci esthisknowledge

alreadyexistsordataalreadyexistssopeoplecanyouknowmove

muchfartherandbemoreadvancedinthewaytheythink.Iwould

lovetobeadvancedbutfirstIneedtohaveabasicdatabase.

End30


..Role of context

1/7

BAR1




R:Themaineventswereourstakeholderworkshopstakingplace

three mesayear,theywereimportantatallstagesoftheproject.

StakeholderengagementtookplacenotonlywithintheENABLE

project,butwewerewellawareoftheENABLEprojectinthisprocess.

Asaprepara onfortheENABLEprojectweweretalkingtothe

stakeholdersinthoseworkshopsabouttheirneeds,whatarethe

priorityques ons,whatarethekeytopicsthattheywanttoworkon

throughthisprocessandalsothinkingaboutkeyareasinthecityfor

interven ons.Thiswasakindofse ngthesceneandwehadtwo

separateworkshops,oneworkingonthespa aloneonthecontentto

determinewhatisrelevantinthecityandIthinkthiswasaveryuseful

approachinmakingtheen restakeholderengagementprocessworth

theeffortforthestakeholders.Thatwastheformalinstrumentthat

weused,forpresen ngresults,wherewestand,tes ngnewideas,

newconceptualapproaches.It'salsolearningforus,becausewe

alwaysusetheseforumsforgivingkeystakeholderstheopportunityto

presentanddiscusstheirwork,soit'snotaone-waydirec on,not

onlyusprovidinginputbutalsostakeholdersinterestedinmaking

theirapproachesmorepublic,fromdifferentpublicen es(mainly),

some mesalsoprivateen esorNGOs.There'salsoalearning

processintwodirec ons.(I:Couldyouiden fysomekeystagesinthe

process?).Thepre-phase(determiningtheneedsandinterests)was

definitelyonecri calphase,beforetheprojectstartedandthenthe

firstsixmonths,fortheotherswedidabitofbackandforththere,we

testedsomeoftheideas,approaches,conceptsintheearlyphasebut

sincewehaddifferentapproachesthiswasgoingoninparallel.For

par cularstudieswealsohadindividualmee ngswithexperts,city

plannersinthegreenspaceplanningdepartmentorapublicplanning

en ty(AgenciadeEcologiaUrba).Wetestourideasandapproaches

withthestakeholdersintheindividualmee ngs.Andthenwehave

therepor ngbackphase,wherewepresentedresultstothe

stakeholdersandaskedaddi onalfeedback.Dependingonthestudy

thisismoreorlessintensive.Thenwehaveotherstudieswherewe

areusingstakeholderknowledgeexplicitly(thepar cipatory

resilienceassessmentforexample)togatherinforma on,so

stakeholderknowledgebecomespartoftheempiricalwork.Wehave

donethatforseveralstudies,forexamplepriori zingtheimportance

ofecosystemservicesprovidedbygreenroofstothencomeupwitha

city-widegreenroofpriori za onmodel.Forthepar cipatory

resilienceassessmentwediscussedwhatisthechangeofsupplyand

demandofecosystemserviceswithregardtodifferentextreme

scenariosthatthecitycouldfaceandwhatwouldbeappropriate

policymeasurestodealwiththat.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


..2-way learning

..When

..How

2/7




R:Averygenerallessonisthis:howtomakeyourresearchreally

relevanttothepeoplewhoaresupposedtoworkwiththat.Ge ng

theresearchfromthelabtotheend-usersandprac oners,thatis

definitelywhatwehavelearnedalotabout.Inthefuture,andalready

nowwri ngnewprojectsitispre ymuchdeterminingthewaystart

designingnewstudies,Iammuchmorefocusingonincorpora ngthe

needsoftheendusersattheverybeginningoftheprocess.Thereare

manymorelessons,itishardtopickthekeyones.MaybeIhave

changedmywayofthinkingaboutpar cipatoryapproachesin

general.Iseemuchmorethelimita onslinkedtothatandthebias

thattheselec onofstakeholdersbringswithit.Iwasmoreop mis c

abouttheseapproachesinthepast,Is llbelievetheyaresuper

essen al,butI'munderstandingmuchbe erthebiasthatisinvolved.

Thereisnoperfectpar cipatoryprocess,wecanhavesomestandards

orideasofhowtoconductpar cipatoryresearchbutwewillnever

reachthoseidealswewillalwaysstayatanunsa sfyinglevel.Maybeit

iscomparabletowhatmodelersdo,theyalwaystrytorepresentthe

reality,buttheywillneverbeabletodoitfully,inapar cipatory

processthat'sverysimilar,youalwayshavetheconstraintthat

networksalreadyexist,thatsomepeoplearekeytoengagewithyour

workandothersarenot,andifyouusethepar cipatoryprocesses

notonlyfordissemina onofyourresultsbutalsoforproducingsome

newknowledgethesewillalwaysbecri callimita ons.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Itisimportanttogainsomeaddi onalinsightsfromotherci esto

putintoperspec vewhatisgoingoninyourowncity.Whathelped

memostwasprobablythepar cipa onintheresilientci es

conferenceinBonnlastmonth,wheretherewasnotasinglecity

presen ngtheirapproach,buttherealityofmul plecityplannersand

prac onersinthesameroom,soadominanceofthatgroupandnot

ofscien sts.Thereyoucouldreallyno cethatci esareatvery

differentstagesinincorpora ngideasthatwehaveinENABLE,weran

aworkshoponmorejus ce-relatedissuesandtheinclusionofpeople

andIonlyrealisedinthatmomenthowfaradvancedBarcelonaisin

thesetopics,evencomparedtonorthernEuropeanci eswhere,at

leastthatwasmystereotype,thataremoreadvancedwhenitcomes

toincorpora ngpeopleindecision-making.Talkingtotheplanners

theremadeveryclearthattheyhaveveryli leexperienceandthey

aremuchmorestuckintotheirdepartmentalsilosthanwhatwesee

hereinBarcelona.Thatwasinteres ngtoreflectonwhatweare

doinghere,hereitgoesmorehandinhand:theknowledgewe

produceandwhatthecityisthinkingaboutandwheretheystandand

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Why

..What

..How

..Role of context

3/7

produceandwhatthecityisthinkingaboutandwheretheystandand

westand.Thatstartedalreadyinthattheyhadthegreen

infrastructureinplacebeforewestartedwiththeURBESprojectin

2012,sotheyarereallyatthefron erofwhatweareworkingon.It's

aninteres ngprocesstounderstandthatwhatweproducemaybe

reallyvanguardforotherci es.IthinkthatiswhytheBarcelonacase

workedsowell,itisnotonlythatweprepareditverywell,itisalso

thatthereisrightnowthiswindowofopportunitythattheyarevery

advancedintheirapproaches,sotheyaresuperopenfor

incorpora ngthenewapproachescomingfromscience,whereas

otherci esthatarelaggingbehindandimplemen ngwhatisalready

commonsenseinthescien ficpartmaystruggleifyoucomewith

newconceptsnowbecausetheyneedtoincorporates llolderones.

Maybeecosystemservicesandgreeninfrastructurearetwoexamples

forthat:Barcelonahasincorporatedthatalready,otherci eshave

not,soifyounowcomeupwithnewconceptsandyouelaborate

furtheronthis,butthebaselineisnotgiventoworkwiththese

concepts,thanobviouslythatismuchmoredifficult.





R:Whatwaskeyformewasengagingmuchmorewiththetermof

nature-basedsolu ons,itwasnotnewbutIhadnorela onshipwith

thattermandIdidn'tfeelit.Ithinkwehaveworkedalotwiththat

term,withthatapproachandhavestartedgivingitmeaninginthis

contextofBarcelonaandalsowithinourresearch.Thereismanymore

approachesfromplanningthatIgotmorefamiliarwiththroughthis

deepengagementwithalotofplanners.Regardingdifficul esinthe

communica on:IthinkwhatweproducedinENABLEwassome mes

abittootheore c,especiallyourframeworks,soweputalotofeffort

innotmakingthemtooprominentinworkingwiththestakeholders,

orreallydoingtheeffortoftransla ngthings.I'mthinkingpar cularly

aboutthefiltersapproach,thatwasnotperseveryintui vetothe

stakeholders.Havingthosedifferentdimensions(infrastructures,

ins tu ons,percep ons)isallfineandpeoplearefamiliarwithit,but

mergingthemintothisfiltersapproachwassomethingthatpeople

struggledwith.Thesameappliesfortheresilienceprincipleswetried

tobringinthework,weno cedintheprepara onmee ngswithour

partner,inthatcasethecity'sresilienceoffice,evenforthemthatwas

tooabstract,sowemainlydroppedthemintheworkwiththe

stakeholders.Regardingwithintheconsor um,peoplenotworking

directlywiththeprojectcoordinatorstrugglewhenhestartstolay

downhistheore calthoughts,butI'mnotsurethatisanissueof

communica onofterminologyandconceptsorratherapersonalway

ofcommunica on.Iincludemyselfinthatgroupforthebeginningof

theprojectandthenIstartedfollowinghislinesofthinkingandnowI

amclosertohiswayofthinking,Iunderstandhowhethinksandhow

heexpresseshisthoughts.Wehavehadsomemisinterpreta onof

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..How

..Role of context

..What


4/7

heexpresseshisthoughts.Wehavehadsomemisinterpreta onof

terms,that'sforsure,andtosomeextentwes llhavethem.Wehave

s llnotreachedacoherentjus ceframework;weares llstruggling

withtheavailability,accessibility,a rac venessframeworkfromthe

Polishcolleagues.Ithinktheworkingtogetherontheconceptswas

somethingwealwayswantedtodoandweneverreallydid.Maybewe

didinthecontextofthemainENABLEframework,butonside

ques onswestruggledmuchmore;thedefini onofins tu onsfor

example,wes lldon'thaveacommonunderstandingofins tu onsin

thecontextofthisprojectandthesameappliesfora rac venessor

percep ons.ThisisnotspecifictoENABLE,butwhatisENABLE-

specificisthatwetriedandwefailed,soIthinkourinternal

methodologiestogetthesedefini onsdonewasnotveryefficient.I

thoughtaboutthatIamnotfullyclearwhatwouldbeadifferent

approachtherebutwedefinitelywerelackingsomeofthemain

reviewtasksintheverybeginning.




R:Ithinkthereali esandchallengesofplannersissomethingIhave

learnedthroughthisdeepengagementwiththeplannersinthecity

andbeyondthecityandthatisshapingmywayofdoing

interdisciplinaryresearchinthefuture.Withintheconsor um,

thinkingaboutthingsinamoretheore calway,especiallyfromthe

resilience-informedideaswasgoodandthatwasmainlydueto

learningfromtheprojectcoordinator,eventhoughtheotherswere

keyforthat,soitwasnotonlythediscussionswithhimbutalsothe

ques onsanddiscussioncreatedwithothers.SoitwasnotthatI

learnedfromtheprojectcoordinator,buthehelpedmetotriggermy

ownthoughts.Ireflectedalotonthewayofdoingintegrated

research,integra ngdifferentmethodsandthatwasmainlydueto

reflec onswithcolleaguesonwhyisitworkinginBarcelona,thinking

inamorera onalwayaboutthethingswedoinamoreintui veway-

itworkedwell,sowhydiditworkwell.Thatisaques onIreflectedon

alotwithpartners(like[LOD1],[OSL1]),thinkingabouttheirown

processesandreflec ngontheprocesswehavegoingonhere,so

combiningdifferentmethodsandmakingthemmostusefulthat's

definitelyalessonIhavelearnedandreflecteduponmorethoroughly.




R:Itgoesinthedirec onofwhatIhavesaidinthebeginning,thatI

havelearnedthatthereisnoperfectpar cipatoryprocessandthat

youwillneverreachthatideal.Wedohaveagapincoopera ngwith

stakeholdersfromtheprivatesector-thatwouldbeintheoryandin

prac ceIamnotreallysureifthatwouldhavebeenhelpfulforthis

stakeholderprocesstolearnmore.Obviouslywecouldhavelearned

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


..Who

..What

..Who


5/7

stakeholderprocesstolearnmore.Obviouslywecouldhavelearned

differentthings,butprobablywewouldhavemissedoutothers.I

wouldratherframeitasatrade-off,orshi ingtheemphasis:withthe

actorsthatyouhaveengagedyoulearnedsomethingandifyou

engageothersyoulearnsomethingdifferent.Inthiscasemaybewe

couldhavelearnedmoreabouttherealityoftheprivatesector(their

needsandsoon)andmaybethatcouldhaveincreasedtheknowledge

wehaveinhowtoenablebenefitsforpeople,butIthinkwelearned

moreaboutthepublicactorsandsomeNGOactorsandsoonandI

wouldleaveitthere.Allprojectshavetheirlimitsinwhattheycando

andwedidwellinnottryingtodoeverything.



R:Thegenerallessonisthatthecentrallyproducedproducts-that

wouldbethecentrallyproducedscenarios,orthecentrallyproduced

maps,butalsothepolicyaspectsarenotveryrelevantforour

stakeholdersontheground.It'sjusttoofarawayfromtheirreali es

andit'snottheques onsthatthey'reasking.So,thatisanimportant

lesson,thatintheendtheoneswhomaketheimpactforresearchare

theonesthatareinplaceworkingwiththepeopleontheground.We

haveagoodexampleforthat:when[projectpartner]engagedinour

stakeholderprocessintheveryend,thatisthepolicyoutcomesthat

willbemorerelevant,thanwhatIproducedbefore.So,that'sthe

generallesson.Ithinktheprocessesarereallykey,thislearning

togetherprocessesinthisstakeholderworkshopformatbutalsothe

individualmee ngswithkeyactorsarecrucial,sothat'salltheprocess

learningandthatisveryintangibleinaway,butwespeaknowthe

samelanguage,weunderstandeachotherintheseforums,andI

understandthecity'sneedsandtheyunderstandwhereweare

heading,thisisverycri calandafundamentalwayofbringinginnew

concepts,newcri calideasintothediscussion,soIhavethehope

thatwewillinfluencetheresiliencediscusioninBarcelonawithwhat

wedidinourprocess,thinkingaboutitinalesssta calperspec ve,

thinkingmoreabouthowmul pledriverschangethesystemina

differentwayandge ngabitthefocusawayfromthisclimatechange

asthemainaspectofresilience.AndIthinkagaintherewedidnot

bringinacompletelynewmessagetothecity,butwesupporteda

verysmallgroupwithinthecityplanners,andgavethemaforumto

furtherdeveloptheirideas,tohaveascien ficbackupforthemandto

makethemmoreknownintheplannersworld,inBarcelona.Again,I

don'tthinkwearebringingincompletelynewconceptsandideas,we

arereallytakinguporbuildingthistogetherwiththecityandthatis

wherewehaveanimpact.




city?

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Who


..Why

6/7

R:Thatismaybethestrongestimpactlongtermthatwehavenowon

thenewlydevelopedresiliencestrategythatisrightnowunderway

andoneofthecoremee ngstoestablishthiswasoneofour

stakeholdermee ngs.SothatisthehopeIhavethatitisreflected

there,butthereareotherthingsthataremoreconcrete:wehave

doneavalua onofecosystemservicesfromstreettreesandlooking

atjus ceaspectsintheirdistribu onandthatisdefinitelyinforma on

thatthecitywilltakeupbecausetheywereverykeenonhavingthis,

makingthevalueofstreettreesmorevisibleinacitywherewehave

lowergreenbutmanystreettrees.AnotherthingthatIamexpec ng

tohaveimpact,andagainitfallsonfrui ulgroundinthecity,isour

workongenderdifferencesintheuseofparks.Thecityhasjustthis

yearbroughtupadocumentforincorpora nggenderperspec vesin

urbanplanningandthisisthefirstempiricalevidencethattheyhave

forthegenderinequali esintheuseandtheflowofbenefitsfrom

urbanparks,sothiswilldefinitelyhavesomeimpactandthereare

otherthingslikethegreenroofsstudywillgivesomeguidanceandso

on.Onethingistheprocessandthenthereareothermoreconcrete

studiesthattackleonespecificneedorspecificknowledgethecity

waslacking.



(I:youalreadymen onedthatforyoutheknowledgeorthelearnings

yougotfromtheprojectwereuseful,forexample,inhowyoudesign

newstudiesornewproposalsandthatyouaremorefocusedin

incorpora ngtheendneedsoftheusersintheprocess,sothatwasa

wayinwhichtheENABLEexperiencewasusefulforyou,arethereany

othersthatyoucanthinkof?)

R:Assaidbefore,thereweresomeconceptualthingsthatIhavetaken

up,thathaveadvancedmyownperspec ve,andmaybetherearealso

somemethodologicalissues,eventhoughthatwasrela velysmallin

whatIwouldassumeIhavelearnedhere,ali lebitontheBayesian

BeliefNetworkmodellingandmaybethemodellingtheBerlingroupis

doingaswell,understandingabitmorehowthatworks;

understandinghowtocreateintegra onswithmyownwork.




R:Itwasquiteamessyprocess,itwasdifficulttonavigatethroughthis

processandIthinktheexpecta onshavechangedoverthecourseof

theprojectseveral mes,soIcannotreallyrememberwhatwerethe

ini alexpecta ons.IthinkIdon'thavethatveryclear.Ithinkthe

trajectorywasquitesurprising.Asco-leadofworkpackage2Ithought

Iwouldworkmoreonpolicies,whichintheendIdidnotdo,andwe

hadthoseverystrongfocusesontheBarcelonacase,andnoneofthe

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Why

..What

..Why

..Expectations

7/7

hadthoseverystrongfocusesontheBarcelonacase,andnoneofthe

studiesthatwedidintheBarcelonacasewerereallythoughtofinthe

beginning,sothinkingaboutthesemappingorgenderissuesorgreen

roofsandsoon.Sothosewereallproductsthatoverthecourseofthe

projectitbecameclearthattheywererelevantandpossibleto

conductandthatwewereinterestedindoingthem,butnothingof

thatisintheini alproposal.Neitheristheuseofsocialmediadata.

Thatwasamessage:makingourworkimpac ulandmeaningfulfor

thepeopleontheground,wecannotdefinepre ycloseinthevery

beginning,otherwisewelosetheflexibilityweneedtoreachthis.That

isformeacoremessage.Sotheexpecta onsinthebeginningwere

moreinthisdirec onofmakingthisworkimpac ulandthatiswhere

welearnedalotandworkedpre ywell.



R:Star ngaresearchwiththeneedsofactorsisthefundamental

thingtomakeresearchimpac ul.

SeealsoQ2.11

End

23

24

25

26

..Expectations



1/5

BAR2




R:WestartedthestakeholderprocessinMarch2017inthe

frameworkof[otherprojectname]andENABLEprojects.Wehave

donesofarabout8or9sessionsandthetopicshavebeenchanging,

butwecalltheprocessadialogueontheimplementa onofnature-

basedsolu onsandgreenandblueinfrastructureintheMetropolitan

AreaofBarcelona.Wetrytobringtogetherstakeholdersfrom

differentorganiza ons,bothfrompublicauthori eslikethecity

councilofBarcelonabutalsotheregionalcouncil,somedepartments

oftheCatalanGovernment,planningagencies,otherresearchcenters,

wetryalsotohavesocialorganisa onsorneighbourhood

associa ons,althoughitismoredifficultforthemtocomebecausewe

organisetheseinthemorningsoitismoredifficultforpeopleto

come.Thetopicsofthemee ngshavebeenchangingdependingon

theneedsoftheprojectatsomepoint,atthesame mewetryalsoto

talkabouttopicsthatarerelevantforthestakeholders.Thefirstone

was,forexample,ontheiden fica on,mappingandpriori za onof

nature-basedsolu ons,wedidakindofworkshoptodothis

spa alisa onexercise.Thesecondwasmoreontheopportuni esand

barrierstointegratenature-basedsolu onsandgreeninfrastructure

inurbanplanning,soitwasmorerelatedwithENABLEwiththis

barriersapproach.Thenthethirdonewasonhowcanweincrease

greeninfrastructureincompactci eslikeBarcelonaandinallofthese

mee ngswehavepresenta onsfrompar cipantswhoareworkingon

differentini a vesatthepolicylevelorurbanplanninglevelor

projectsrelatedtogreenspace.Inthisthirdonetheurbangreen

infrastructureprogramofthecitycouncilwaspresentedand

discussed.TheninMarch2018thetopicwasmorerelatedtohealth,

sowhatistheimpactofnature-basedsolu onsandgreen

infrastructureonhumanhealthandhowcanwemakehealthyci es.

Hereweinvitedresearchersfromacenterherewhoaredoingalotof

researchonthistopic,theyareenvironmentalepidemiologists.Then

inJune2018wedidamoreENABLE-relatedmee ng,relatedtogreen

roofs.Weorganiseditonaroo opgardenfromthecitycouncil,they

aredoingaveryinteres ngprojectrelatedtosocialintegra onof

peoplewithmentaldisabili esandtheyworkinthisgardenandother

gardensinthecity-theywonaprizerecentlyforthisproject.Inthis

mee ngitwasakindofpriori sa onofwheregreenroofsshouldbe

implementedinBarcelonabasedondifferentcriteria,basicallybased

onecosystemservicesdemandinthecity.[BAR1]wasmoreleading

thisstudy,whichwasrecentlypublishedinascien ficjournal.Thenin

December2018,becauseourgroupisworkingmoreonenvironmental

jus ce,wehadamee ngonhowcanweintegratesocialand

environmentaljus ceandequityinurbangreening.Weopennedthat

oneabitmorethannormal,weorganisedapubliceventinthe

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


..Who

..How

..When

2/5

oneabitmorethannormal,weorganisedapubliceventinthe

morning(inthea ernoontherewasaworkshop).Then,thisyearwe

haveorganisedalreadytwo:inFebruaryweorganisedonethatwas

veryfocusedon[otherprojectname],becauseitwasthetes ngof

theurbannatureindex,whichiskindofanassessmentframework

thathasbeendevelopedinthe[otherprojectname]projectbysome

colleagues.Theideawastotesttheframeworkusingcasestudiesof

Barcelonaandtogivefeedbacktoimprovetheframework.Thelast

mee ngwaslastJune(2019),morerelatedtoENABLEbecauseitwas

relatedtoresilience.ActuallyweinvitedthecitycouncilofBarcelona,

namelythepeoplewhoareinchargeoftheresiliencestrategy-they

areworkingonitandonlynextyeartheywillapproveit.Wedida

workshopbasedonhowcantheresiliencebeenhancedinBarcelona

throughgreeninfrastructureplanning.Oneoftheoutputsofour

ENABLEcasestudywillbebasedonthisworkshop.




R:IwasinvolvedintheENABLEposi oningpaperpublishedin

BioSciencejournal,soformethelearningprocesswasmorerelatedto

thisENABLEframework,sothefiltersatdifferentlevels,basedon

infrastructure,percep onsandins tu ons.Alsotointegrate

environmentaljus ce(althoughIhadalreadyworkedabitwiththat

topic)andtoconsidertheresiliencelensingreeninfrastructure

planningwasalsosomethingmorerelatedtoENABLEbecause[other

projectname]isnotsomuchaboutresilience.SoIwouldsaythese

twoaspects:theframeworkbasedonthefiltersandapproachingthe

greeninfrastructureplanningandthebenefitsofgreeninfrastructure

underaframeworkofresilienceandenvironmentaljus ce.





R:ItisnotthatIhavelearnedanynewterms,Ihavebeenworking

withconceptslikegreenandblueinfrastructureorecosystemservices

orevennature-basedsolu ons,soIwouldn'tsaythatIlearnednew

concepts,becauseforexampleintheENABLEframeworkthisideaof

filters-infrastructures,percep ons,ins tu onsarenotreallynew

terms,itismorepu ngtogetherdifferentaspectsthatwehavebeen

workinginthelastyears.Iwouldn'tsaythatspecificallyintermsof

newconceptsortermshavebeennewtome.Butthenmaybeitis

truethatithasbeenabitdifficultformetounderstandthissystems

model,thisframeworkatthebeginning.Thishasbeenespeciallyled

by[STO1]andIhavethefeelingthatheknewquitewellwhatwasthe

frameworkinhismindbutitwasabitdifficultforhimtocommunicate

inthebeginning.Anditwasabitdifficultformetounderstandhis

ideaoffilters,theirrela onshipwithresilienceandequityandsoon.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

..How

..When

..What

..What

..Who


3/5

ideaoffilters,theirrela onshipwithresilienceandequityandsoon.

WhenIwasworkingwiththatpaperIjustvolunteeredtodothiskind

ofexampleboxwherewetriedtodescribehowthesesystemicfilters

canbeexplainedinarealexample,formethiswasquitealearning

exercise,tryingtobringthisframeworkintoarealcase.




R:Difficulttosaybecausewehavebeendoingsomanymee ngs.In

termsofconceptsIrememberthatatthebeginning,duringthefirst

mee ngs,someofthestakeholderswereabitconcernedaboutthe

conceptofnature-basedsolu ons,becauseinBarcelonatheyhave

beentakinguptheconceptofecosystemservicesorenvironmental

servicesandgreeninfrastructurebutnotsomuchthenature-based

solu onsconcept,soitwasabitdifficultintermsofterminology,

especiallyfromthesideof[otherprojectname]inthiscase.Besides

theworkshops,whatwehavebeendoinginthesemee ngswehave

beeninvi ngmanyorganisa onstopresentini a vesrelatedtogreen

infrastructure,likestrategicplansorurbanplanninginstruments,the

alreadymen onedresiliencestrategyofthecity,soithasbeena

learningprocessalsoformeinrela ontowhatisgoingonintermsof

policy,bothatthecitylevelandthemetropolitanlevel,andhowthey

aretryingtoimplementthisre-naturingagendainthecity.Something

thatisclearisthatBarcelonaisgivingmoreimportancetothese

aspectsofgreeningnotonlyintermsofthemoretradi onal

recrea onalaspectsbutalsointermsofclimatechangeadapta on,

socialbenefits,thingslikethat.Icouldn'tmen onanyspecificthing

butmoreagenerallearningprocessfromthestakeholdersaswell.

(FromtheresearchteamseeQ.2.5)




R:Wehavealwayshaddifficul estoreachgrassrootgroups,orsocial

groups,morethebeneficiariesofthesepolicies,theneighbourhood

associa ons,evenNGOs,evenifwehavebeeninvi ngsomeofthem

ithasbeenmoredifficultforustoreachthem,maybebecauseofthis

meissuethatwewereorganisingmostofthesemee ngsduringthe

weekandinthemorning,andmanyofthesepeoplehavetheirjobsso

itisdifficultforthemtojustgotoamee ng.Thisisdifferentforpublic

authori esorresearchcentersorforagenciesbecauseforthem

a endingthiskindofeventsispartoftheirwork,sotheycandoit

moreeasily.Sointhiscaseithasbeenprobablyabitunbalancedin

termsofthiskindofstakeholders.



8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

..What

..Who


..What

..Who

..Who


4/5

R:Thesekindofprojectsaretryingtoinfluenceatsomepointthe

urbanpolicyandurbanplanningandtherearedifferentdecision-

makingcontextswherethiskindofresearchprojectsareinfluen al.

Firstwouldbesimplyawarenessraisingaboutthebenefitsofgreen

infrastructure,maybealsothenarra veaspectsbutalsothebenefits.

Second,couldbemoredirectlyinfluencingpolicy,priority-se ng.

Thosewouldbethetwolevelstowhichtheoutputsoftheproject

couldbemorerelevant.Actuallyinthelastmee nginJuneabout

resilienceweco-organisedtheworkshopwiththecitycouncil(urban

resiliencedepartment)soitcouldbeusefulforthestrategyofthecity,

becausetheyarenowdevelopingthisstrategy.Wealwaystryto

organisethesemee ngstogetherwithstakeholderswhohaveakind

ofmandateforintegra ngtheseconceptsinurbanpolicy.Evenif

some mesitismoreaboutknowledgetransferonly.



R:Idon'tknowifitwasforspecificthings,beinginvolvedinresearch

projectslikeENABLEismorealearningprocessingeneral.Gaining

knowledgeisalsousefulforteaching.Some mesIteachatMaster

levelandtheknowledgegeneratedintheseprojectscanbeused,

sinceitissomethingrelevantandrecent.Intermsofbenefits,the

publica onsarealsoimportantforusasreseachers.Thenallthe

networksthatwearemaintainingintheseprojectswithdifferent

researchorganisa onsinEurope.Iwouldsaythesearethemost

relevantforme.




city?

R:IwouldsaythattheENABLEframework,withthisideaofthethree

filters,issomethingnew,evenifitismoredifficulttoopera onalise.

AtthelevelofresearchIthinkitisimportant.Formealltheseaspects

relatedtoenvironmentaljus cehavebeenuseful,theideaof

availability,accessibilityanda rac veness,becauseourgrouphereis

focussingonenvironmentaljus ceaspects,soithasbeenagood

synergywiththeENABLEproject.




R:ItisabitdifficulttoanswerthisbecauseIwassupposedtobeabit

moreinvolvedintheprojectthanIcouldintheend.Idonotexactly

rememberifmyexpecta onswereveryhighornot.Iguesssomething

thatIwasmoreorlessinvolvedinthebeginningandI'mnotsure

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

..Why

..How

..Why

..What

..Why

..Expectations

5/5

thatIwasmoreorlessinvolvedinthebeginningandI'mnotsure

whatisthestatusnowbutitseemsthatitisnotgoingtobestudiedat

leastinthisproject,istheaspectoffunc onaltraitsthatisrelatedto

resilience.Wehadthisplantoassessthefunc onaltraitsofplantsin

differentci esandhowcanweassessthepoten alimpactsofclimate

changeevents,extremeeventslikeheatwavesorfloodingonthe

abilityofvegeta ontoprovideecosystemservices.Thisissomething

westartedworkingoninthebeginningbutthendidnotgetvery

implementedduringtheproject,soIhopethatthiscanbeatsome

pointre-takenmaybeinanotherproject.



R:MaybethemostimportantthingisthatIhavebeenabletoworkon

thisframeworkofgreeninfrastructureandecosystemservicesin

rela ontourbanenvironmentaljus ceaspects.Asyouknowwehave

beense ngupaspecialissueonthattopicintheEnvironmental

ScienceandPolicyjournal,soallthisworkthathasbeendonewithin

ENABLEinrela ontoenvironmentaljus cehasbeenfrommypointof

viewoneofthemostimportantthings.Iknowthattherehasbeena

lotofworkrelatedtoresilience,topolicy,percep onsandsoon,but

inmycaseIhavebeenpar cularlymoreinterestedintheseaspects

relatedwithjus ceandhowcantheENABLEframeworkaddress

environmentaljus ceandequityaspects.

End

21

22

23

..Expectations


1/7

CC1



themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?Didyoulearnthemfrom

theresearchteamorfromotheractors?(insteadof2.6)

R:Ofcoursetherewasalotofdifferentresearchmethodsappliedand

testedontheprojectwhichofcourseforuswasalotofnewthings

andnewinsightsonhowdifferentaspectscouldbestudied.Ihadno

chancetodigintoeachofthosemethodologiesandeachofthose

outcomesbutforexampleafewthingsthatwereveryinteres ngfor

usthatwelookedintoin-depthforexamplelikethemappingof

preferencesandvalueswhenitcametotheci zensandalsolikehow

differentgreenspaceshavebeenused.Therewasforexamplework

thatwasdoneby[projectpartner]thatwaspresentedalsoinHalleto

seethedifferenttechniquesbecausethisisknowledgeIthinkthat

couldbeeasilytransferredandusedbyacityandwealsohada

chancetotryandtestandadjusttheQ-methodologyforthefirst me

onourownandtousethatforexampleintwodifferentspots(inHalle

andStockholm)whichwasalsoofcoursecrea ngnewinsightsfor

thosecasestudiesandatthesame mealsoleadingusatthe

ques on:howcouldthisbeusedandtranslated.Wewerealsovery

interestedtoseehowdoestheresilienceassessmentworked.Ithink,

notbeinginvolvedintheprocessitwasabitdifficulttogetthefull

pictureofthissupercomplexanalysis.Wejustnowgotforthecity

surveythatthiswasinseveralci essomethingreallynewbutalsoa

methodandresultsthathadagoodimpactongreencitydevelopment

inseveralci es,soIthinkit'ssomethingwehavetolookatinmore

detail.Thiswasdiscussedmoretheore callyamongthecasestudies

andIthinkyouonlyreallyunderstandonceyouareontheworkshop

togetherwiththestakeholderswherethisconceptisbeingpresented.

ApartfromthewholeGISanalysiswhichisalsoinsigh ul,whatwas

alsonewknowledgewasonthisdifferentunderstandingsfordifferent

termsthatwealsodiscussed.Ithinkitwasespeciallyquitedifferent

whenitcametobarriershavingdifferentapproachesmoreonthe

ins tu onalsidelookingatwhatwasdonebyLodzandwherewe

camewiththismoretradi onalapproachwhereyouhavedifferent

typesofbarriersfromtechnical,financialcultural,soIthinkitwas

quiteinteres ngforustoseehowdifferenttermscanbeapproached,

specificissues,andIthinkthesamealsowithgovernanceand

ins tu onalissues,soIthinkthatwasaveryenrichingprocesstohave

thediscussionwiththeotherresearchersbutalsowiththechallenge

tobringthedifferentmindstogether,alsocrea nglikeanumbrella

concept,sothatcapturesitall.TherearealotofmorepapersthatI

havetoreadIhadnotthe meyetbutitwasreallyinteres ngtosee

alsohowmanyfoldmethodshavebeenappliedtodifferentextentsin

thedifferentci esandalsowithdifferentoutcomes.

(Fromotheractors):

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Who

..What

2/7

Ourcontactwasratherlimitedbecauseeverythinghappenedthrough

thecityresearchpartners.Ithinktheclosestcontactwehadwaswith

thedifferentactorsinHallesowiththecityadministra onpeopleand

alsowiththepeopleforexamplefromNeutopiainHalle-Neustadtand

Ithinkthatwasinsigh ulaswell.Itmadeusstartthinkinghowcan

youreallylikeapplyamethodwhichisusuallysupertheore cand

superresearchdrivenbuthowcanyouapplyittoaspecificcontext,so

thatitiss llunderstandableandcanalsocreatemeaningfulresults,at

leastresultsthatcouldbepresentedandideallyalsofeedintoongoing

processes,soIthinkthiswassomethingthatdefinitelywelearned.

Alsotherewassomanydifferentfactorsfromculture,differenthabits

ofthepeoplethereanddifferentinterestsandalsowiththelanguage

ofcoursethat'swhereweneededpeoplewhospeakArabicwhichwe

luckilyhad,orRussian.Forusitwasachallengebutitwasareally

goodonetotoembraceallthosedifferentfactors.Therewasof

coursealsocontactwiththecitybutIthinktheywerealwaysso

overwhelmedwithwork,especiallyinthelastworkshopasI

remember,theywereunfortunatelynotthatmanypeopleasexpected

soIthinkthatle uswithaques onmark:thepeoplewhowerethere

werereallymo vated,buts lltheques onwhatcouldbeachievedif

otherpeoplehadbeeninvolved.Thatwasnotfullyclearfromthis

contact.Ourinterac oninLodzalsoenlighteneduslikehowfor

examplethetermgreenandblueinfrastructureisbeingperceivedand

alsoopera onalizedwhichcanbesuperdifferentfromtechnological

solu onsorjustreallyberegenera ontowardsreallygreensolu ons

takingintoaccountmul plebenefits.Ithinkthisiswhatwelearned

whenengagingwiththestakeholderseitherthroughworkshopsorjust

forthestudysitevisits.



havelearnedthemost?

R:Maybebecauseit'sfreshbutalsobecauseIwasmorestrongly

involved,werethelatestseriesofworkshopsthathappenedinthe

secondhalfoflastyear,thatwaswhatwecallittheco-crea on

workshopstodiscussthepolicyop ons.Wehavebeendeeply

involvedalsointhedesignofsomeofthese,toseehowwewecan

reallygetthemessagesthatwewant,soIthinkwetookalotofitof

course.There'salotofvarietyofdifferentoutcomesbutitalsomade

usrealizehowdifferentprocessesareandalsoshowedtosomeextent

thateachcityhadadifferentfocussomewereregionalinfocussome

hadaspecifictopictofollowup.Youcannotjustcomparethose

resultsbutIthinkwhatwasreallygoodformylearningwastoseethe

differentapproachesintermsofpeoplethattheyhadinvited,the

discussionstheyhadbutalsotoseehowdifferenttheoutcomeswere,

likewhenitcametopoten alpolicyop onsthathavebeendiscussed

andthathavealowerorhigherchancealsotofeedintofuturepolicy

development.IthinkthisiswhatIrememberthemost.Iwasreally

amazedthatevenforci esthatwerestruggling,likeLodz,theywere

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Who

..What

..How

..When

3/7

amazedthatevenforci esthatwerestruggling,likeLodz,theywere

supermo vatedbutofcoursetherearealsodifficul estogetthe

engagementfromthecitytheywantedbuts lltheyhadtheworkshop

andalsotheyhadgoodresultsa ertheworkshop.





R:Notreallynewtermsthatwereused,thereweresomethingsthat

hadbeenusedalready,likesocio-ecologicalsystem.Thechallengewas

more,formewhocomesmorewithanappliedresearchperspec ve,

thattheconceptoftheprojectwastomyunderstandingdrivenalot

fromhypothesisandresearchtheoriessoIthinkthatisthechallenge

itselfifyouworkmoreontheappliedresearchsideandsome mesI

hadafeelingtherewasanoverloadoftermsbeingusedforexample

whenwetalkedaboutthefiltersandthedifferentprinciples.

Some mesIhadthefeelingtherewerelikeahundredconceptsandin

apapereachofthemusuallywouldneedapagetoexplainitto

peoplewhoarenotfamiliarwiththat.Ithinksome mesitwasa

challengetogetagrasponallthoseverytheore caldefini onsand

theterms.Thereweresomenewoneslikeforexamplewiththe

barriersIthinkthatwasreallyopeningandIhaveabe er

understandingofins tu onalbarriers.Otherswerenotnewbutthe

projectwasusefultofillthem,likedistribu onaleffects,orlearning

moreaboutequityandjus cetheprojectreallyhelpedtofillthose

termsthatwewereawareofbefore,buttoseehowtogetcontentto

itandabe erinsightintothesetopics.

Difficul es:itisalwaysthisins tu onalandgovernancepolicyanalysis

whichofcoursedependingwhereyoucomefromcanbeinterpreted

quitedifferentlyandifyou,asIdo,workmorereallycloselywiththe

EuropeanCommissionandtheministriesithasareallyclearmeaning

reallyreferringtothepoliciesandinstruments,butIhadafeelingthat,

althoughIthinkallofthepartnersalsohadareallygood

understandingofthis,some meswhenitcamemoretothein-depth

discussionsandwiththedifferentresearchfociofeachofthepartners

thathaddifferentmeanings.Ithinkwhatwashelpfulandwhatwehad

intheHalleworkshopwasthediscussioninthedifferentgroupswith

threegroups(onewasonpreferencesandvalues,theotheron

ins tu onswiththefiltersandthelastonewiththebarriers).Ithink

thatwasreallyhelpfulatleasttodiscussitevenifofcourseyoudon't

cometoagreementbutatleastyouhavealistofdifferenttermsand

thedifferentunderstandingshowtheyarebeinghandledinthe

project.Ithinkthat'sfineandIdon'tthinkyouneedmoreyoudon't

needtobringthemtogetherIthinkit'sjustimportantandit'salso

goodforlearningtosittogetherandeverybodysayswhatheorshe

understandsaboutthistermandhowthisconceptisbeingappliedin

aproject.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..How

..When


..What


..How

4/7




R:WehadaneventinBrusselsandinvitedtherightpeoplebecause

wehadforexampleDGEnvironmentandDGRTDpresentandother

stakeholders.Itwouldhavebeeninteres ngtoengage,toacertain

extent,withoneortwootherprojectsthatwererunningunderthe

samefundingscheme,toexchange,seewhatistheirresearchfocus

andiftheremaybesomesomeoverlapsorsimilari es.Fortheci es

usuallyyoushouldalwayshavethepeoplewhohaveasayinthese

topics-likethecityofficialsfromthecitydevelopmentorthe

environmentaldepartment.Thatwasthecaseinsomeofourcase

studies,butyoushouldalsoengagepeoplewhoalsocanhavea

contribu on,maybepeoplewhoworkineduca onorinhealth.What

wasIthinksuperinteres ngfromtheOslocase,andmaybethatwasa

specialcasebuttheywereIthinkquitesuccessful,atleastinsome

areas,because[OSL1]workedreallycloselywiththetechnicians.That

isquiteinteres ngbecauseIthinktherewerenoreallytechniciansin

theothercases,maybeitwouldn'thavemadesensebutitwas

interes ngtoseethatdependingonwhatyouworkon,youmight

needtoengageotherpeople.



managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinthecasestudy

ci es?

R:Star ngwithpresen nganddiscussinganewholis capproachalso

intermsofaresilienceassessmentthatconsidersmul plebenefitsin

areallyintegratedway.Thatwassomethingnewtotheci esandto

someextentalsotriggeredotherperspec vesandviewsongreenand

blueinfrastructure,sothathelpedinseveralci estoopentheir

minds.Ithinkthatwassomething,likeincreasingandhandingamore

systemicunderstandingofgreenandblueinfrastructureandwhatis

included,soit'snotjustclimatechangebutitcouldbealsosocial

aspectsorotherthingsthatarebeingaddressed.Anotherthingwhich

ispartofthatbuthasbeenaddressedmorespecificallywashaving

morefocusonthesocialdimensionofgreenandblueinfrastructure,

forexamplethinkingabouthowgreenandbluespacesaredistributed,

howdifferentpeoplebenefitordon'tbenefitfromitandthen

addressingthisissueofequity,whichisemergingbutIthinkit'ss ll

notsomethingthat'sinthemindsofthepeoplewhoareplanning

maybebecausetheydon'thave metothinkaboutit.Anotherthing

thatwasquitebeneficialwasjustimprovingtheevidencefordecision-

making.AlotofthosethingshavebeensupportedalsobyGISanalysis

andprovidingdataandmaps(forexampleinNYCdataonstormwater

management),soprovidingplanningauthori eswithanalysesthat

maybetheycouldn'tdothemselvesmostlymaybebecausetheydon't

havethe melycapaci esortheydon'thavethetechnicalcapaci es

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..Who

..What

..Why

5/7

havethe melycapaci esortheydon'thavethetechnicalcapaci es

soIthinktheseanalysesalsowereabigsteptomaybesupportorto

informfutureini a ves.



R:Mostlyfromstuffwedidourselves,forthefirst mewestarted

diggingintothistopicofpreferencesandvaluesandpercep onsof

ci zenswhenitcomestothedesignofgreeninfrastructure,thiswasa

supergoodopportunityforustototryandtestaspecificmethodbut

alsolearnaboutothermethodsthathavebeenappliedbyother

partnersinthisregardandthatisalsosomethingthatwewillfollow

upinthefutureandinotherprojectsbecauseweshouldtakeinto

accountpeople’spreferencesandnotpresumethatweknowwhat

theywant.Thisissomethingthathelpedusenlargingthefocusofour

greenandblueinfrastructurework.Anotherthingwearesuper

interestediniswhatisneededtoestablishandenableagood

rela onshipandagoodworkingbasisbetweenresearchersand

prac oners(andinthiscasetheci es)becausemaybecomparedto

others,wearenotsomuchinvolvedinscien ficresearch(tes ng

hypothesis,publishingpapers)butweareveryinterestedtolookinto

whattheci eshavelearnedhereandmaybeovermanyyearsand

helpinguselicitthehamperingbutalsosuccessfactors,butalso

showcasingwhatresultshavebeenthroughprocessesandwhyit

workedorwhyitdidn'twork.Ithinkthatwassomethingthat'sadding

newknowledgeforourworkthatisveryimportantalsototakeinto

accountforfutureworkbecauseyoucanmuchbe erencounterthose

factorsandthenadjustagainyourmethodasnecessary,alsowhen

buildingownprocesseswithci esit'salsohelpfultoknowwhatis

reallyneededorwhatcouldbeagoodapproachforexampleto

establishagoodrela onshipandatrustyrela onshipbecausethat's

keytocreatebenefitsforbothsidesandalsotoworktowardsagoal.I

thinkthiswasnotexplicitinENABLEsowejusthadadiscussionusing

transdisciplinaryapproachbuttherearedifferentdefini onssoifyou

takeiteasyyoucouldjustsayit'sagoodbigcoopera onbetween

researchersandadministra onsorci zensbuttherearealsoconcepts

thatsaynowellactuallyyoustartalreadywithajointproblem

defini onandthenyoucreateyourresearchagendaandyouwork

towardsit.Ihadthefeelingwestartedwiththemethodsandwiththe

researchwhichwasfinebecausethiswasthescopeoftheprojectbut

inmyunderstandingitwasnotahundredpercenttransdisciplinary

approachbecausethenwewouldhavestartedwithagapanda

problemanalysisineachoftheci esandwouldhavedesigned[the

research]butofcourseitwasnotthepurposebecausethepurpose

wasadifferentone.




15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..What

..Why

..Why

..How

6/7

R:From2.9

Therearedifferentinterestsalwaysinsucharesearchprojectsoof

coursewehavetoadvancewithspecificmethodsanddifferent

approaches,assessmentthishastobeadvancedsothisisone

interest.Ontheotherhandweshouldaddresssocietalchallenges,

seeingwhatarethekeyproblemsandthentoseewhatcouldbethe

methodsthatcouldbeapplied.Some mesIfelttheamountof

methodsweweredealingwithwasquiteoverwhelmingandthe

ques onwouldbehowtheyfittogether,becausetheideawastohave

acomplementaryimplementa onofthedifferentmethodsandIthink

theyallhadgoodresultsbutmaybetherecouldhavebeenafewless

methodstoapplytoaspecifictargetbutofcoursewiththefreedom

oftheresearcheralsototestnewthingssoworkingwiththe

instrumentsandhavingtheresearcherasasortofknowledgebroker

whohasknowledgebutknowingthatthere'salsoknowledgefromthe

cityside.Thereisalotoflocalknowledgethatdoesnotalways

necessarilygointoourresearch.Sostartearlierwithadiscussionwith

theci esandthenfindaconceptthatfitstheinterestofthepeople

beinginvolvedandthatiss llofcourserealis candmaybealsodon't

committotoomanymethodsbutagoodsetofmethodsthatcouldbe

beneficialformostoftheci esandthentryifpossibletohaveamore

frequentexchangemaybewithsmallermee ngstoestablishasmall

dialoguesothatit'snotonlylikeonceayearortwiceayearbutso

keepthepeopleinformed.Intheendwhatyoudeliverissomething

thatcouldbereallynotjustinformingbutideallysomethingthatcould

alreadydirectlyfeedintoongoingprocesses.Ithinkthatalready

happenedinafewci esbutifyouevenincreasethenumberof

dialogueswhichs llworksforbothintermsofworkloadIthinkthat

couldbequitebeneficial.Andevenmoreexchangebetweentheci es

notjustbetweentheresearchers.Ithinkitwouldbeinteres ngfor

theci esiftheyhavenotjusttheroleofaresearchsubjectbutalso

givethemtheroomtoexchangebecauseit'salsoalearning

experienceandyoulearnthemostifyougointotheci esandseethe

placesandhearthestories.




R:Firstofallwewereanewbietothisteam,therewasalotof

rela onsalreadyestablishedthroughIthinktheURBESproject.Ithink

wewereluckytogettheopportunitytoworkwiththisnewgroupof

people,whichwasanewnetworkforuswhichisalwaysanew

exci ngexperienceforusbecauseweknowthere'salotofexper se

thatthisnetworkhasandthatwecanjustbenefitfrom,becauseall

partnershadalotofpublica ons.Wewerereallyexcitedtogetthe

opportunitytoworkwiththisteam.Idon'tthinkwehadlikeaspecific

expecta on,Ithinktherewasalotofinterestwhenwehadthe

conceptandforexampletolearnmore,fromtheverybeginning,

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

..How


..What

..Expectations

7/7

conceptandforexampletolearnmore,fromtheverybeginning,

abouttheresilienceassessmentwhichIs llthinkthatwehavetolook

probablynowmoreintotheconcludingpaperstogetafull

understanding,maybeyoudon'tgetlikeahundredpercent

understandingbutmaybelike80or90percenttofullygraspthis

concept,butIthinkthatwassomethingthatwewerecuriousabout

fromtheverybeginning.Ithinktherewerenospecificthingsthatwe

hadinmindthatwewouldliketolearnapartfromexploringonour

ownnewmethodologiesaspartofthisprojectsoIthinkwewere

reallyopentoalltheaspects,itwasjustthecuriosityandalsotowork

withthesenewexpertsandwiththisnewteaminthisse ng.Thereis

nothingthatIwouldsaytherewasnoopportunitytolearnabout.



R:Oneofthethingsthatdefinitelywewilltakeawayandtakebackto

ourworkisthispotpourriofpossibleassessmentsandmethods,that

workedreallywellinprac cetogetherwiththeci esandtotake

thoseintoaccountwhenstar ngtoworkwithotherci es,justto

learnwhatresearchcancontributetoimprovethecurrentplanning

whenitcomestogreenandblueinfrastructure,ornaturebased

solu ons,havinganoverviewofmethodswhichyoucanpickfrom,I

thinkthat'sreallyworthhavingandthentryingtoimplementthemin

otherprojects.

Thinkingaboutwhatdoesittaketocreateagoodcoopera onwith

thecitythat'sbeneficialforbothsidesknowingaboutallthedifferent

factorsthatcouldimpactsuchaworkandeitherhamperbutalsobe

successdrivers,Ithinkthat'salsoveryinsigh ul.

Andthenlearningfromtheexperiencesfromtheci es,whatspecific

researchhasmadeanimpactinthoseci esandtakingthosealsoas

goodexampleswhengoingtootherci es.It’salwaysgoodtosee

whathasworkedinagivencity,whatwastheresultandmaybethisis

somethingthatwecantry,ofcourseadjus ngtothelocalcontext,

andIthinkthat'salsohelpfulwiththesedifferentdifferentregional

casesthatwelookedatandofcoursealsolookingatthethingsmaybe

thatworkedlesswellthat'salsolikelearningfromthefailuresor

thingsthatworkedoutdifferentlythanexpected,thisisquieta

valuableinforma onforotherci esforexample.

End

22

23

24

25

26

..What

..Expectations



Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research ...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research ...