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
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-
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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.
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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.
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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.
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
Ecology and Society 26(4): 19https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss4/art19/
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
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
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
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
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
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
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
..Synergies with other projects
..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
..Barriers to learning
..Recommendations for future
..Most Significant Change
..Recommendations for future
6/6
clearlyabouturbanresilience,becauseyoucanseealterna vestates
thatyourcitycouldbeinandthat'snotpossibleoratleastmuchmore
difficultwhenyouonlyworkinyourowncitybubble.IfIthinkina
veryconceptualwaythatmightbeatake-homemessagefrom
ENABLE.Youcan’treallydourbanresiliencestudieswellunlessyou
haveacross-citycomparisonapproach.
End29
..Most Significant Change
..Recommendations for future
1/6
HAL1
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
R:TwoworkshopsinHallewithstakeholders,onemoreatthe
beginningoftheprocess,theotheronemoretowardstheend.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)
R:Yes,thereweretwoissuesthatwerenotveryposi veandthat
unexpectedlydidnotwork.ThefirstissueisthattheQ-method
doesn’twork.Iwassoop mis cthatthismethodcouldyield
addi onalknowledgeandcouldbecomplementedwiththemental
mappingandIamnotsurewhatexactlywentwrong.Thesecondissue
wastheresilienceassessment.Itissomuchshapedtothecondi ons
oftheresearcherswhoaredevelopingthisconceptthatitishardto
adaptittoanyothercontentthatmightrununderaslightlydifferent
regime.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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).
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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?
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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”.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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
..Recommendations for future
5/6
desk-studyontheknowledgewehaveacquiredandgetintoa
systema clearningonhowtouserealdynamicmodels,notlook-up
tables.Tolearnfromwhatwealreadyhave,becausewehavealotof
data,butwetendtoaddmoredataratherthanlearnfromwhatwe
have.
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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.
3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge
exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?
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
..Recommendations for future
..Importance of failing
..Recommendations for future
..Barriers to learning
6/6
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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
..Most Significant Change
..Role of context
1/5
HAL2
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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
..Recommendations for future
2/5
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
city?
R:SeeQ2.9
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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".
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
R:Themostinteres ngfromascien ficpointofviewwasthis
understandingofasystemcomingfromtheoriestoempiricsand
observa ons.
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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.
3.7.Isthereanythingyouwanttoaddregardingyourexperience
withtheproject,whichhasnotbeenmen onedsofar?
R:Whatwasverynice,wasthatwedidnotonlydodeliverablesand
followourdu es,butthatwealsohadthefreedomtobeunderstood
inamoreexplora veway.Doingresearchinordertofosterour
understandingandourownlearning,whichisnotsomething
common,lookingatotherprojects.
End
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
..Expectations
..Most Significant Change
..Recommendations for future
..Recommendations for future
1/8
STO1
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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
..Importance of failing
..When
..Synergies with other projects
..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.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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
..Importance of failing
..How
..Recommendations for future
3/8
ofwhatourmandateswere.Atake-homemessagethereisthatyou
needmorethanonepersontryingtodothesethingsifyouwantto
broadenwhatkindoflearningyoucouldhopetohaveyourself.It
reallyhashelpedforustobethreepeopleonboard.Soaminimumof
twoandoneisnotenoughbecausethenyouwillbeverythinly
stretchedtocoverallthedifferentneedsoftheprocess.Oneofthe
thingswedida erthestakeholdermee nginLodzwastotalk
throughthedifferentperspec vesfromthefacilitatorstotheprocess
ownerstothepar cipants-howtheexpecta onsandthewhole
experiencedifferedthroughthesedifferentroles.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)
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
..Recommendations for future
..Difficulties w/ terms
..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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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
..Recommendations for future
..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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
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
..Synergies with other projects
..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.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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.
3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge
exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?
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
..Most Significant Change
..Recommendations for future
..Synergies with other projects
..Why
..Barriers to learning
..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.
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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
..Barriers to learning
..Role of context
..Recommendations for future
1/9
STO2
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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
..Recommendations for future
..Difficulties w/ terms
..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.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
..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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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
..Recommendations for future
..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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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
..Recommendations for future
6/9
itisnotlikeamanagerbutmorelikearesearcher'sfacilitator
competence,tohelpuswithposters,models,paperwri ng,tohelpus
spreadtheword,listening,thiskindofthings.Wetriedtoorganize
theseprocesseswithstakeholdersbutweareratherbadindoingit
internallyinmostofthecases,becausewedonotaddthattothe
budgets.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
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
..Recommendations for future
..Why
..Recommendations for future
..Why
..What
7/9
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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
..Recommendations for future
..Role of context
..Most Significant Change
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.
3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge
exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?
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.
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
..Role of context
..Most Significant Change
..Barriers to learning
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.
3.2.Couldyouactuallyapplysomeofthenewknowledge/insights/
ideasresul ngfromtheprojectinyourownac vi es(e.g.inother
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
..Recommendations for future
..Why
..Recommendations for future
1/5
LOD1
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
R:Ofcoursewelearnallthe meandtheprojectofferedusthe
opportunitytolearnbutit'snotveryclearwhatpar cularlywasthe
resultofthisprojectandnotofsomeotherworkthatwehadatthe
same mebutintermsoflearningIwouldsaythatforthefirst me
weweredoingthisexercisewithstakeholdersthatweinvitedthemto
mee ngswherewepresentedourresearchandIthinkthisis
somethingthatwelearnedisveryusefulandthatwewouldliketodo
inthefutureaswell.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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
..Synergies with other projects
..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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
..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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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
..Synergies with other projects
..Why
4/5
greenspacesortogreenspaceviews,especiallywhentheyhaveto
walktoschoolratherthanbedrivenbycarandtheyandthelocal
authori esespeciallyfromthemunicipalplanningofficearereally
interestedinthisinthewaytheymodelleditandinthewaythey
studieditingeneralIthinkthattheymaybeinterestedinusingthe
sameproceduresfordevelopingsomebroadergreenspace
accessibilitystandardsnotjustrelatedtogreenspacessuchasparks
orgreensquaresandforestbutalsotoverysmallgreenspaceslike
streetsidegreenery.Thesearethemostrelevantexamplesfromthe
perspec veofwhatwehadtotransfertothelocalauthori es.Ithink
thatthisissomethingthattheybenefitthemostandtheareasin
whichwehavethelargestopportunitytoreallyhaveanimpacton
localstakeholderswiththisspecificproject.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
R:Iwouldsaythattheprojectmetmyexpecta onsI'mhappywithit
andtheonlythingthatIwouldprobablywanttohappendifferentlyis
tohavemoreconsistencybetweenthecasestudies.Ithinkitwould
havebeenevenbe erifwedefinedverysimilarthings,verysimilar
sub-projectsineachofourcasestudiesandwereabletoworkon
theminparallel,thenthefindingswouldprobablybemore
informa veforeachothercasestudynowIfeelthateveryonewas
workingon,ingeneral,similarthingsbutslightlydifferentornot
slightlybutverydifferentandbecauseofthistheopportuni esfor
mutuallearningarenotasbigastheycouldhavebeenhadeveryone
workedonmuchmoresimilarthings.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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.
3.2.Couldyouactuallyapplysomeofthenewknowledge/insights/
ideasresul ngfromtheprojectinyourownac vi es(e.g.inother
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
..Why
..Expectations
..Barriers to learning
..Most Significant Change
5/5
ideasresul ngfromtheprojectinyourownac vi es(e.g.inother
researchprojects)?
R:Wedefinitelywanttoworkongreenspaceavailability,accessibility
anda rac venessfurtherandIthinkthisissomethingthatwestarted
withinENABLEandwewanttocon nuethisworksoitisalegacyof
thisproject.
3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge
exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?
R:SeeQ2.11
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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
..Barriers to learning
..Recommendations for future
1/5
LOD2
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
R:Wespentsome meonneedsofourci zensregardingBlue-Green
Infrastructure.Butdefinitelyweneverworkedtoomuchonjus ce
issues.Sothisissomethingwhichwaskindofnewandthiswasalso
thefirst mewhenwelookedcloserataccessibilityofspaces.So
theseweretwothings.AndthethirdoneIwouldsayis:Evenifweare
somehows llintheprocessofresilienceassessmentwegotali lebit
moreknowledgeofwhatisitabout.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
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
..Synergies with other projects
..How
..Who
..When
..What
..Who
2/5
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
R:Idon'tthinkIfacedsomethinglikethatbecauseweworkmoreor
lessinthesameenvironment-also,manyofthepeopleforalonger
me.Sotherewerenotmuchmismatchesinbetween.Iwouldonly
saythatregardingresilienceassessmentitwasali lebiteyeopening
becauseIthinkthatusuallywekindofmessbetweensustainability
andresiliencewhichmaynotnecessarilymeanthesame.Imean
sustainabilityisalwaysposi veandresiliencemaysome mesreflecta
realitysowedon'tacceptasecologistoryouknowotherspecialists.
ButIdidnotreallyexperiencethiskindofdifferentunderstandingof
issues.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
R:Well,IthinkthatENABLErantoomuchasscien ficproject-evenif
wehaveci esin.Soformewemaybemissedthisinputfromatleast
decision-makers.Sowecouldgetmorefromci esandlearnas
scien stsmorefromthosewhodealwithreali es,notonlythe
scien ficapproach.AndIthinkthatalsomaybedirectinterac on
betweenci escouldbebeneficialfortheproject.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
..Who
..Expectations
..Why
3/5
veryimportantbecausewemanagedtopullatleastsomedata,some
informa onaboutBlue-GreenNetwork.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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.
3.3.Couldyouiden fyanybarriersthatpreventedknowledge
exchangebetweentheresearchteamandlocalactors?
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
..Barriers to learning
4/5
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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.
3.7.Isthereanythingyouwanttoaddregardingyourexperience
withtheproject,whichhasnotbeenmen onedsofar?
R:Iwouldlovetoknowwhatotherslearned.Whatwasthevarietyof
perspec vesofteammembers.BecauseveryearlyIgotthe
impressionthatalsotheci esandteamswithinENABLEhavedifferent
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
..How
..Expectations
..How
..Most Significant Change
..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
..Previous collaboration
..Role of context
1/7
BAR1
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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
..Synergies with other projects
..2-way learning
..When
..How
2/7
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
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.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)
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.
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
..Who
..What
..Who
..Recommendations for future
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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
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.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
city?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
..Who
..Recommendations for future
..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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
(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.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
R:Star ngaresearchwiththeneedsofactorsisthefundamental
thingtomakeresearchimpac ul.
SeealsoQ2.11
End
23
24
25
26
..Expectations
..Recommendations for future
..Most Significant Change
1/5
BAR2
2.2.Whateventsorotheropportuni estofosterlearningdidyou
promoteinyourENABLEcasestudycity?Inwhichstagesofthe
projectdidtheytakeplace?
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
..Synergies with other projects
..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.
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
themassomethingyouhave“learned”)?
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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
3/5
ideaoffilters,theirrela onshipwithresilienceandequityandsoon.
WhenIwasworkingwiththatpaperIjustvolunteeredtodothiskind
ofexampleboxwherewetriedtodescribehowthesesystemicfilters
canbeexplainedinarealexample,formethiswasquitealearning
exercise,tryingtobringthisframeworkintoarealcase.
2.6.Doyoufeelyoulearnedsomethingfromtheresearchteam?And
fromotheractorsinthecity?Canyouiden fywhatyouhave
learnedfromeachofthem?(mainitems)
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)
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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.
2.8.Forwhichpurposesdoyouseetheknowledgecreatedinthe
projectuseful(e.g.suppor ngGBIplanning/managingprocesses)?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
..What
..Who
..Difficulties w/ terms
..What
..Who
..Who
..Barriers to learning
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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
R:Idon'tknowifitwasforspecificthings,beinginvolvedinresearch
projectslikeENABLEismorealearningprocessingeneral.Gaining
knowledgeisalsousefulforteaching.Some mesIteachatMaster
levelandtheknowledgegeneratedintheseprojectscanbeused,
sinceitissomethingrelevantandrecent.Intermsofbenefits,the
publica onsarealsoimportantforusasreseachers.Thenallthe
networksthatwearemaintainingintheseprojectswithdifferent
researchorganisa onsinEurope.Iwouldsaythesearethemost
relevantforme.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
managementofgreenandblueinfrastructureinyourcasestudy
city?
R:IwouldsaythattheENABLEframework,withthisideaofthethree
filters,issomethingnew,evenifitismoredifficulttoopera onalise.
AtthelevelofresearchIthinkitisimportant.Formealltheseaspects
relatedtoenvironmentaljus cehavebeenuseful,theideaof
availability,accessibilityanda rac veness,becauseourgrouphereis
focussingonenvironmentaljus ceaspects,soithasbeenagood
synergywiththeENABLEproject.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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
..Most Significant Change
1/7
CC1
2.3.Whatknowledgeorideas/insights/perspec vesdidyougain
throughyourpar cipa onintheproject(evenifyoudon’tconsider
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.
2.4.Throughwhichproject-relatedac vi es(e.g.workshopsinother
ENABLEci es,stakeholderworkshopsinowncity)doyouthinkyou
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.
2.5.Didyoulearnanyterms(liketechnicalterms)thatwerenewto
you?Ifyes,howusefuldoyoufindthemforyourac vi es?Didyou
experiencesomedifficultycommunica ngwith/understanding
othersduetotheterms/jargonused?
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
..Difficulties w/ terms
..What
..Difficulties w/ terms
..How
4/7
2.7.Doyouthinktherewereotheractors,whocouldhavebeen
beneficialtothelearningprocess,butwhowerenotengagedinthe
project?Werethereanypar cularreasonstonotengagethem?
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.
2.10.Whatnewknowledgeornewinsightsresul ngfromthe
projectdoyouconsiderthemostrelevantfortheplanningand
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.
2.9.Inwhichwaysistheknowledgeproducedintheprojectuseful
foryou(assupporttoyourac vi es)?
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.
3.4.BasedonyourexperiencewithENABLE,howshouldknowledge
exchangestrategiesandprocessesbedesignedinthefutureto
enhancethelearningprocess?
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.
2.11.Didtheprojectmeetyourexpecta onsregardingwhatyou
wantedtolearnabout?Ifnot,whatwouldyouhavelikedtolearn
about,whichwasnotpossiblethroughtheproject?
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
..Previous collaboration
..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.
3.1.Whatdidyoufindmostinteres ngandusefulfromtheproject?
Whatwerethemain“take-homemessages”?
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
..Most Significant Change
..Importance of failing
Top Related