case study on sustainable development project

The Zoo is free to visit, but entry passes are required for all guests, including infants.

Today's hours: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (last entry 5 p.m.)

Elephant Cam

See the Smithsonian's National Zoo's Asian elephants — Spike, Bozie, Kamala, Swarna and Maharani — both inside the Elephant Community Center and outside in their yards.

Now more than ever, we need your support. Make a donation to the Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute today!

Become a Member

Members are our strongest champions of animal conservation and wildlife research. When you become a member, you also receive exclusive benefits, like special opportunities to meet animals, discounts at Zoo stores and more.

Education Calendar

Find and register for free programs and webinars.

About the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute

Case Study: Scenario Planning for Sustainable Development in Peru's Amazon Forest

Madre de Dios, located in the foothills of Peru’s tropical Andes, is one of the most biodiverse places in the world. The region has renowned protected areas and initial land-use plans, which makes sustainable development a challenge. In 2014, a hydrocarbon company began gas exploration activities in Madre de Dios as part of the government’s economic development needs. The work overlapped a protected area, called the Amarakaeri Communal Reserve, and included several Indigenous territories. 

There were concerns that energy exploration would open the area to illegal mining and deforestation. Local communities feared it would impact their forest and livelihoods. This case study explores how researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute’s Center for Conservation and Sustainability used scenario planning to help the company and regional government minimize social and environmental impacts in Madre de Dios and create a strategy for sustainable development.

Madre de Dios is located within the Vilcabamba-Amboró conservation corridor, which connects about 74 million acres (30 million hectares) of wildlife habitat between Peru and Bolivia. The corridor is the most biologically diverse ecosystem in the world. Dividing Madre de Dios and the conservation corridor is the Interoceanic Highway, which connects ports on the Atlantic coast of Brazil to those on the Pacific coast of Peru.

The road, completed in 2010, sped the transition of the regional economy from forest-based extractive industries (logging, Brazil nut harvesting, ecotourism, etc.) to agriculture, cattle production and gold mining. These changes promoted population growth. Today, Madre de Dios is home to about 150,000 people, including 14 native cultures, migrants from neighboring Andean regions, and immigrants from Brazil, Bolivia, and other countries.  

Agriculture and gold mining are the main causes of deforestation in the area. The Amazon Forest covers more than 90% of Madre de Dios territory, of which about half is protected. The rest is divided into concessions for logging, hydrocarbon, mining, ecotourism and more.

Evaluation and Analysis  

The Center for Conservation and Sustainability suggested a scenario planning approach to minimize the possible impact of the gas development field in Madre de Dios. Scenario planning is a structured way to think about the future of a region and facilitate decision making by exploring a handful of plausible futures, called scenarios. For this purpose, the CCS team needed to compare the economic, social and environmental success of different development scenarios. With more than 30 years of experience in Peru, CCS scientists were able to work with local stakeholders and the government to define a path forward. 

When the exploratory drilling well produced no gas, the work ended. However, CCS continued to complete the scenario planning project for Madre de Dios to benefit sustainable development across the entire region (32,935 square miles or 85,301 square kilometers).  

Creating sustainable landscapes requires managing roads and cities (gray infrastructure) that provide economic services with rivers and forests (green Infrastructure) that support biodiversity. Recognizing this, CCS developed the Working Landscape Simulator. The simulator combined state-of-the-art modeling with community engagement. It included seven steps:

• Assess the critical goods and services that people get from ecosystems (called ecosystem services) in Madre de Dios  
• Develop qualitative scenarios about the future of the region with community participation   
• Collect and generate quantitative data (demographic, economic, etc.) 
• Model landscape changes, like deforestation and urbanization, for each scenario 
• Evaluate economic, environmental and social indicators of success 
• Develop lessons learned from the study 
• Share the results 

Models of land-use changes, such as trends in deforestation and urbanization, made the best use of the existing data. Engagement with local stakeholders ensured they were interested in the results and more likely to use them for decision making.

Milestone Solutions  

This study demonstrates that industrial operations, such as gas exploration, can contribute to sustainable development beyond traditional approaches and legal obligations. In scenario planning, CCS was able to provide: 

• Collective recommendations  that highlight the need for a land-use plan and provide a roadmap for planning regional land changes and sustainable development 
• Maps of critical conservation corridors  and other areas that are key to keeping habitats connected within Madre de Dios. 
• Essential and previously unavailable data  – such as historical land cover maps; ecosystem services; and economic, social, and environmental indicators – needed to guide sustainable development and land-use planning.

Recommendations 

The Center for Conservation and Sustainability’s study was key to understanding the conservation landscape of Madre de Dios and integrating that knowledge with the region's development needs. Best practices from this approach include: 

• Consider scenario planning for large-scale projects to build a shared conservation and development vision 
• Engage stakeholders early in the process 
• Use high-quality models that track socioeconomic and ecosystem changes 
• Develop various indicators of success in the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic prosperity, human wellbeing and environmental integrity) 
• Share information by making methods and results publicly available to all 

To learn more about the Madre de Dios scenario planning study download the  “Future of Madre de Dios: Smithsonian’s Working Landscape Simulator for Sustainable Development” book.

14 innovative projects helping to save the planet and make the world a better place

UpLink helps communities across the world face the threats of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Image:  Unsplash/Noah Buscher

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Natalie Marchant

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} COVID-19 is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• Digital crowdsourcing platform UpLink was created to address the world’s most pressing problems.
• The initiative seeks sustainable solutions to tackle issues such as climate change and social injustice.
• Projects are also aimed at tackling the impact of the global coronavirus pandemic.

The importance of sustainable solutions came to the fore in 2020 as communities across the world faced the threats of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Digital crowdsourcing platform UpLink was created to address such challenges and help speed up the delivery of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.

Unveiled at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in 2020, the platform - launched with founding partners Deloitte and Salesforce - connects the next generation of change-makers and social entrepreneurs to networks of contacts with the resources, expertise and experience to help bring about change.

Since its launch, UpLink has surfaced the best entrepreneurial solutions through competitions such as its Ocean Solutions Sprint , Trillion Trees Challenge , COVID-19 Social Justice Challenge and COVID Challenges . Here are some of the most innovative.

Have you read?

3 innovations leading the fight to save our forests, these 15 innovations are helping us fight covid-19 and its aftermath, 4 ideas that could make our response to covid-19 more equal.

Ocean Solutions Sprint

Cubex Global

Oman-based Cubex Global aims to cut global shipping emissions by enabling businesses to easily buy and sell unused container space on existing cargo routes. The company claims that its blockchain-based marketplace could help reduce emissions from shipping vessels by up to 20% and recover about $25 billion in lost freight revenue each year.

Waste management service RecyGlo works with businesses in Myanmar and Malaysia to recycle and process material in a safe and non-hazardous manner, helping to avoid mismanaged plastic being dumped in the region’s rivers and ending up in the ocean. The Yangon-based company manages 500 tonnes of waste and saves 1,470 tonnes of CO2 each month .

Scottish biotech start-up Oceanium uses sustainably-farmed seaweed to create food and nutrition products and compostable biopackaging. It believes that a sustainable seaweed farming industry can help mitigate the effects of climate change and create jobs.

COVID Challenge

Intelehealth

Developed at Johns Hopkins University, Intelehealth is a telemedicine platform that connects patients and frontline health workers with remote doctors to deliver primary care services at a distance in countries such as India.

UpLink is a digital platform to crowdsource innovations in an effort to address the world’s most pressing challenges.

It is an open platform designed to engage anyone who wants to offer a contribution for the global public good. The core objective is to link up the best innovators to networks of decision-makers, who can implement the change needed for the next decade. As a global platform, UpLink serves to aggregate and guide ideas and impactful activities, and make connections to scale-up impact.

Hosted by the World Economic Forum, UpLink is being designed and developed in collaboration with Salesforce, Deloitte and LinkedIn.

Emergency services app Flare provides next-generation 911 for those who do not have access to help in case of an emergency. In Kenya, its ‘Uber for ambulances’ platform has reduced response times by 87% and helped save 2,500 lives since its 2017 launch.

Carbon Health

Tech-enabled primary care provider Carbon Health aims to improve access to world-class healthcare. In the US, it established pop-up COVID clinics in 30 cities, with doctors available on video call, and has so far tested more than 500,000 people .

Desolenator

Desolenator’s solar-powered water purification systems help remote communities produce clean drinking water, without the need for filters, chemicals or external energy sources. This helps them build water resilience in the face of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic .

Trillion Trees Challenge

Borneo Nature Foundation

For over a decade, Borneo Nature Foundation has developed planting methods to reforest degraded deep peatland, which is an important carbon store, key to local economies and home to populations of orangutans. It has planted more than 30,000 seedlings , and established community seedling nurseries in villages near Borneo’s remaining tropical rainforests.

Reforestum and Ecosphere+

Spain-based CO2 offsetting service Reforestum teamed up with UK climate solutions company Ecosphere+ to enable individuals and businesses to finance forest conservation and restoration by offsetting their carbon footprint.

Inga Foundation

Slash-and-burn farming is the only source of income for millions of farmers but it’s devastating the world’s rainforests. This is something that the UK-based Inga Foundation wants to counter through its Inga Alley farming method, which helps farmers build long-term food security on one plot of land.

Social Justice Challenge

Global platform citiesRise seeks to transform mental health policy and practice for young people across the world through its Mental Health and Friendly Cities framework – something that is only likely to become even more relevant in the COVID-19 era.

Philippines-based telerehabilitation platform TheraWee aims to improve access to rehabilitation services for children with difficulties by connecting their parents with individuals, groups and communities that can offer them support.

Noora Health

US start-up Noora Health provides families with medical skills training to help look after their loved ones, both in health facilities and at home. Its Care Companion Program has already reached more than 1 million relatives in India and Bangladesh .

Family Mask’s #PPEforAll

Global Citizen Capital and its company Family Mask’s #PPEforAll initiative was set up to boost access to affordable personal protective equipment (PPE) as the pandemic hit. By July 2020, more than 1 million masks had been distributed to elderly people across the world.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on COVID-19 .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Winding down COVAX – lessons learnt from delivering 2 billion COVID-19 vaccinations to lower-income countries

Charlotte Edmond

January 8, 2024

Here’s what to know about the new COVID-19 Pirola variant

October 11, 2023

How the cost of living crisis affects young people around the world

Douglas Broom

August 8, 2023

From smallpox to COVID: the medical inventions that have seen off infectious diseases over the past century

Andrea Willige

May 11, 2023

COVID-19 is no longer a global health emergency. Here's what it means

Simon Nicholas Williams

May 9, 2023

New research shows the significant health harms of the pandemic 

Philip Clarke, Jack Pollard and Mara Violato

April 17, 2023

British Council

Sustainable development goals (sdgs).

• What are the sustainable development goals?

SDG case studies

Following the SDGs exhibition of 2016, we commissioned an externally-led study to review evidence from a selection of programmes across the British Council's portfolio. This included three case studies to illustrate impact and lessons learned. As well as highlighting success and good practice, the case studies provide useful guidance for further development of programmes, in order to demonstrate contribution to the SDGs, as well as reinforcing the need for evidence of long-term impact.

The English for Education College Trainers (EfECT)

This project was initiated following a request from the Burmese government for support with its process of educational reform. The case study notes that the project was not designed using the SDG framework but Goal 4 underpins the British Council’s work in English and education in Burma.

This programme was started in Pakistan in 2013 and ran until April 2016. The name means ‘friendship’ in Urdu and Hindi but is also an acronym for Developing and Organising Social Transformation Initiatives. The project links football with personal and peace-building development training in which the lessons of the football pitch – teamwork, self-discipline, respect for others, tolerance – are inculcated, deepened and amplified. The case study notes that contribution to gender equality has been significant, breaking down traditional attitudes and empowering girls and young women.

Newton Fund

This case study looks at the way that the support of the Newton Fund – managed by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – facilitated the creation of a network of researchers in Oxford and Mexico collaborating on a vaccine against Dengue Fever. Unlike the programmes featured in the other case studies, the SDGs were central to this programme, as the Newton Fund uses contributions to the SDGs as a criterion for assessing funding proposals. The case study notes that the requirement to demonstrate the relevance of their work to the SDGs was not seen as an imposition [by the team] but merely confirmed the implicit focus of their work.

British Council Worldwide

• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Czech Republic
• Hong Kong, SAR of China
• Korea, Republic of
• Myanmar (Burma)
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Macedonia
• Northern Ireland
• Occupied Palestinian Territories
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Switzerland
• United Arab Emirates
• United States of America

Sustainable development: Principles, frameworks, and case studies

• Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Systems

Research output : Book/Report › Book

Coined in the 1970s, the term sustainable development and the ideas behind it have enjoyed varying amounts of popularity over the years. And while dire predictions abound, the full impacts of global warming are not known, nor can they be known. What we do know is that to be sustainable, all societies must adjust to new realities, which include changing ecosystems and natural limits to growth. How do we address these issues and maintain an equitable way of life for all on the planet? Exploring the human-related aspects of sustainable development, Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies emphasizes the need to move away from an unwanted circumstance by being systemic in our thinking instead of symptomatic. The authors argue that we cannot move away from an unwanted, negative circumstance, unless we can move toward a desired, positive outcome. The text summarizes positive approaches and presents strong theoretical and historical concepts along with salient case examples that illustrate the desired outcome of each model or framework discussed. Often ensnared in thorny political ideology, the sustainable development issue also suffers from a deep and multidimensional nature that can be intimidating. This book offers, in one volume, a broad discussion of important frameworks pertaining to sustainable development. Based on the expertise of distinguished practitioners and scholars, the book’s content includes diverse and interrelated subjects drawn from a wide range of geographical areas. It offers techniques for evaluating and applying the basic principles of sustainable development and participatory project planning to achieve economic and environmental goals.

Bibliographical note

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Publisher link

• 10.1201/9781439820636

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Case Study Computer Science 100%
• Sustainable Development Principles Keyphrases 100%
• Desired Outcome Computer Science 50%
• Development Issue Computer Science 50%
• Model Computer Science 50%
• Geographical Area Computer Science 50%
• Basic Principle Computer Science 50%
• Project Planning Computer Science 50%

T1 - Sustainable development

T2 - Principles, frameworks, and case studies

AU - Ukaga, Okechukwu

AU - Maser, Chris

AU - Reichenbach, Mike

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - Coined in the 1970s, the term sustainable development and the ideas behind it have enjoyed varying amounts of popularity over the years. And while dire predictions abound, the full impacts of global warming are not known, nor can they be known. What we do know is that to be sustainable, all societies must adjust to new realities, which include changing ecosystems and natural limits to growth. How do we address these issues and maintain an equitable way of life for all on the planet? Exploring the human-related aspects of sustainable development, Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies emphasizes the need to move away from an unwanted circumstance by being systemic in our thinking instead of symptomatic. The authors argue that we cannot move away from an unwanted, negative circumstance, unless we can move toward a desired, positive outcome. The text summarizes positive approaches and presents strong theoretical and historical concepts along with salient case examples that illustrate the desired outcome of each model or framework discussed. Often ensnared in thorny political ideology, the sustainable development issue also suffers from a deep and multidimensional nature that can be intimidating. This book offers, in one volume, a broad discussion of important frameworks pertaining to sustainable development. Based on the expertise of distinguished practitioners and scholars, the book’s content includes diverse and interrelated subjects drawn from a wide range of geographical areas. It offers techniques for evaluating and applying the basic principles of sustainable development and participatory project planning to achieve economic and environmental goals.

AB - Coined in the 1970s, the term sustainable development and the ideas behind it have enjoyed varying amounts of popularity over the years. And while dire predictions abound, the full impacts of global warming are not known, nor can they be known. What we do know is that to be sustainable, all societies must adjust to new realities, which include changing ecosystems and natural limits to growth. How do we address these issues and maintain an equitable way of life for all on the planet? Exploring the human-related aspects of sustainable development, Sustainable Development: Principles, Frameworks, and Case Studies emphasizes the need to move away from an unwanted circumstance by being systemic in our thinking instead of symptomatic. The authors argue that we cannot move away from an unwanted, negative circumstance, unless we can move toward a desired, positive outcome. The text summarizes positive approaches and presents strong theoretical and historical concepts along with salient case examples that illustrate the desired outcome of each model or framework discussed. Often ensnared in thorny political ideology, the sustainable development issue also suffers from a deep and multidimensional nature that can be intimidating. This book offers, in one volume, a broad discussion of important frameworks pertaining to sustainable development. Based on the expertise of distinguished practitioners and scholars, the book’s content includes diverse and interrelated subjects drawn from a wide range of geographical areas. It offers techniques for evaluating and applying the basic principles of sustainable development and participatory project planning to achieve economic and environmental goals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055854043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055854043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1201/9781439820636

DO - 10.1201/9781439820636

AN - SCOPUS:85055854043

SN - 9781439820629

BT - Sustainable development

PB - CRC Press

case studies

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 08 July 2022

A critical examination of a community-led ecovillage initiative: a case of Auroville, India

• Abhishek Koduvayur Venkitaraman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8515-257X 1 &
• Neelakshi Joshi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8947-1893 2  

Climate Action volume  1 , Article number:  15 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

6748 Accesses

2 Citations

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Sustainability

Human settlements across the world are attempting to address climate change, leading to changing paradigms, parameters, and indicators for defining the path to future sustainability. In this regard, the term ecovillage has been increasingly used as models for sustainable human settlements. While the term is new, the concept is an old one: human development in harmony with nature. However, materially realizing the concept of an ecovillage is not without challenges. These include challenges in scaling up and transferability, negative regional impacts and struggles of functioning within larger capitalistic and growth-oriented systems. This paper presents the case of Auroville, an early attempt to establish an ecovillage in Southern India. We draw primarily from the ethnographic living and working experience of the authors in Auroville as well as published academic literature and newspaper articles. We find that Auroville has proven to be a successful laboratory for providing bottom-up, low cost and context-specific ecological solutions to the challenges of sustainability. However, challenges of economic and social sustainability compound as the town attempts to scale up and grow.

Graphical abstract

Similar content being viewed by others

Ghost roads and the destruction of Asia-Pacific tropical forests

Jayden E. Engert, Mason J. Campbell, … William F. Laurance

Disappearing cities on US coasts

Leonard O. Ohenhen, Manoochehr Shirzaei, … Robert J. Nicholls

Establishing ecological thresholds and targets for groundwater management

Melissa M. Rohde, John C. Stella, … Christine M. Albano

Introduction

Scientists have repeatedly argued and emphasized for an equilibrium between human development and the basic ecological support systems of the planet (IPCC 2014 ; United Nations 1987 ). Human settlements have been important in this regard as places of concentrated human activity (Edward & Matthew E, 2010 ; Scott and Storper 2015 ). Settlement planning has responded to this call through visions of the eco-city as a proposal for building the city like a living system with a land use pattern supporting the healthy anatomy of the whole city and enhance its biodiversity, while resonating its functions with sustainability (Barton 2013 ; Register 1987 ; Roseland 1997 ). In planning practice, this means balancing between economic growth, social justice, and environmental well-being (Campbell 1996 ). However, the concept of eco-cities remains top-down in its approach with city authorities taking a lead in involving the civil society and citizens to implement the city’s environment plan (Joss 2010a , b ).

Contrary to the idea of eco-cities, ecovillages are small-scale, bottom-up sites for experimentation around sustainable living. Ecovillages resonate the same core principles of an eco-city but combine the social, ecological, and spiritual aspects of human existence (Gilman 1991 ). Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland is one of the oldest and most prominent ecovillages in the world and has collaborations with the United Nations and was named as a best practice community (Lockyer and Veteto 2013 ).

Another notable example is the Transitions Town movement that started in Totnes, United Kingdom but has now spread all over the world (Hopkins 2008 ; Smith 2011 ). The movement focuses upon supporting community-led responses to peak oil and climate change, building resilience and happiness. Additionally, it emphasizes rebuilding local agriculture and food production, localizing energy production along with rediscovering local building materials in the context of zero energy building (Hopkins 2008 ). Ecological districts within the urban fabric are also termed as ecovillages (Wolfram 2017 ).

Ecovillages are intentional communities characterized by alternative lifestyles, values, economics and governance systems (Joss 2010a , b ; Ergas 2010 ). At the same time ecovillages are located within and interact with growth-oriented capitalistic systems (Price et al. 2020 ). This dichotomy presents a challenge for ecovillages as they put ideas of sustainability transformation into practice. We explore some of these contradictions through the case study of Auroville, an ecovillage located in southern India. A discussion on the gaps between the ideas of an ecovillage against their lived reality throws light upon the challenges that ecovillages face when they attempt to grow. We begin by elaborating the key characteristics of ecovillages in the “Characteristics of ecovillages” section. We then present our material and methods in the “Methodology” section. Furthermore, we use the key characteristics of an ecovillage as a framework for analysing and discussing Auroville in the “Auroville, an ecovillage in South India” and “Discussion” sections. We conclude with a reflection on the concept of ecovillages.

Characteristics of ecovillages

The concept of an ecovillage is broad and has multiple interpretations. Based on a reading of the existing literature on ecovillages, we summarize some of their key characteristics here:

Alternative lifestyles and values : Ecovillage can be seen as intentional communities (Ergas 2010 ) and social movements which have a common stance against unsustainable modes of living and working (Kirby 2003 ; Snow et al. 2004 ). Ecovillages advocate for achieving an alternate lifestyle involving a considerable shift in power from globalized values to those internalized in local community autonomy. Therefore many ecovillages aspire to restructure power distribution and foster a spirit of collective and transparent decision-making (Boyer 2015 ; Cunningham and Wearing 2013 ). However, it is difficult to convince many people to believe in a common value system since the vision is to establish a world that is not only ecologically sustainable but also personally rewarding in terms of self-sacrifice for a good cause (Anderson 2015 ).

Governance : ecovillages tend to rely on a community-based governance and there is an assumption that the local and regional communities respond more effectively to local environmental problems since these problems pertain to the local context and priorities (Van Bussel et al. 2020 ). In a community-based governance system, activities are organized and carried out through participatory democracy committed to consensual decision-making. However, participatory democracy has its own set of problems. Consensual decision-making is time-consuming, and the degree of participation tends to vary from time to time (Fischer 2017 ). Participatory processes have also been criticized on the grounds for slowing down the decision-making process and resulting in a weak final agreement which doesn’t balance competing interests (Alterman et al. 1984 ).

Economic models in an ecovillages : ecovillages have attempted to combine economic objectives along with the overall well-being of people and have experimented with budgetary solutions appealing to a wider society (Hall 2015 ). As grassroots initiatives, ecovillages have advocated and practised living in community economies (Roelvink and Gibson-Graham 2009 ) and have influenced twentieth century economic practices beyond their geographical boundaries (Boyer 2015 ). Due to the emphasis on sharing in ecovillages, they can be considered to accommodate diverse economies (Gibson-Graham 2008 ) where human needs are met through relational exchanges and non-monetary practices, highlighting strong social ties (Waerther 2014 ). In some ecovillages, living expenses are reduced by sharing costly assets and saving cost on building materials by bulk buying and growing food for community consumption and sale (Pickerill 2017 ). These economic models have their own merit but are perhaps insufficient for the long-term economic sustainability of ecovillages (Price et al. 2020 ). Eventually, ecovillages might have to rely on external sources to import goods and services which cannot be produced on-site. This contradicts the ecovillage principles of being a self-reliant economy, reduction of its carbon footprint and minimizing resource consumption, thus implying a dependence on the market economy of the region (Bauhardt 2014 ).

Self-sufficiency : fulfilling the community’s needs within the available resources is a cornerstone principle for many ecovillages (Gilman 1991 ). This is often achieved through organic farming, permaculture, renewable energy and co-housing. Such measures are an attempt to offset and mitigate unsustainable development and limit the ecovillage’s ecological footprint (Litfin 2009 ). The initial small scale of the community often allows for this. However, as ecovillages grow in size and complexity, the interconnectedness and inter-dependence to the surrounding space become more apparent (Joss 2010a , b ). Examples include drawing resources from central energy and water systems (Xue 2014 ). Furthermore, ecovillages might turn out to be desirable places to live, with better quality of life, driving up land and property prices in the region as well as carbon emissions with additional visitors (Mössner and Miller 2015 ). Furthermore, in their role as catalysts of change in transforming society, ecovillages need to interact with their external surroundings and neighbouring communities, the municipalities, and the state and national level policies (Dawson and Lucas 2006 ; Kim 2016 ). This is particularly relevant in the Global South, where the ecovillage development has the potential to drive regional-scale sustainable development.

The characteristics of an ecovillage, however, do not exist in a geographical vacuum. Scholarly understanding of ecovillages as bottom-up efforts to drive sustainability transitions largely draw from the experiences of the Global North (Wagner 2012 ). Such ecovillage models often challenge the dominant capitalistic paradigm of post-industrial development, overconsumption and growth. Locating ecovillages in the Global South requires an expansion or re-evaluation of their larger socio-economic context as well as their socio-ecological impacts (Dias et al. 2017 ; Litfin 2009 ) .

To build upon the opportunities and challenges of ecovillages, locating them within the context of the Global South, we present the case of Auroville, an ecovillage located in southern India.

Methodology

We use the initial theoretical framework of ecovillage characteristics as a starting point for developing the case study of Auroville. Here, we draw from academic literature published about Auroville during 1968–2021. We also draw inferences from self-published reports and documents by the Auroville Foundation. Although we cover multiple interconnected aspects of Auroville, the characteristics pertaining to an ecovillage remain the focus of our work. We review the literature sources deductively, drawing on aspects of values, governance, economics and self-reliance, established in the previous section.

We triangulate the secondary data sources against our ethnographic experience of having lived and worked in Auroville for extended periods of time (2010–2012 and 2013–2014, respectively). We have worked in Auroville as architects and urban planners. During this time, we participated in multiple meetings on Auroville’s development as part of our work. We have discussed aspects of Auroville’s sustainability with Aurovillians working on diverse aspects, from urban planning to regional integration. Furthermore, living and working in Auroville brought us in conversation with several individuals from villages surrounding Auroville, employed in Auroville. For writing this case study, we have revisited our lived experience of Auroville through memory, research and work diaries maintained during this period, photographs as well our previously published research articles (Venkitaraman 2017 ; Walsky and Joshi 2013 ). Given our expertise in architecture and planning, we have also presented the translation of the key characteristics of an ecovillage, namely, alternative values, governance and economic systems and self-reliance, in these domains.

We acknowledge certain limitations to our methodology. We rely largely on secondary data to expand upon the challenges and contradictions in an ecovillage. We have attempted to overcome this by drawing from our first-hand experience of having lived in Auroville. Although our lived experiences are almost a decade old, we have attempted to compliment it with recently published articles as well as newspaper reports.

The next section presents Auroville as an ecovillage followed by a critical examination of its regional impact, governance, and economic structure.

Auroville, an ecovillage in South India

Foundational values.

Sri Aurobindo was an Indian philosopher and spiritual leader who believed that “man is a transitional being” and developed the practice of integral yoga with the aim of evolving humans into divine beings (Sen 2018 ). His spiritual consort, Mirra Alfassa realized his ideas in material form through a “universal township” which would hopefully contribute to “progress of humanity towards its splendid future”. Auroville was founded in 1968 by Mirra Alfassa, as a township near Pondicherry, India. Alfassa envisioned Auroville to be a “site of material and spiritual research for a living embodiment of an actual human unity” (Alfassa 1968 ). On 28 February 1968, the city was inaugurated with the support of UNESCO and the participation of people from 125 countries who each brought a handful of earth from their homelands to an urn that stands at its centre as a symbolic representation of human unity, the aim of the project. This spiritual foundation has guided the development of the socio-economic structure of Auroville for individual and collective growth (Shinn 1984 ). To translate these spiritual ideas into a material form, Mirra Alfassa provided simple sketches, a Charter, and guiding principles towards human unity (Sarkar 2015 ).

Roger Anger, a French architect translated Alfassa’s dream into the Auroville City Plan that continues to inform the physical development of Auroville (Kundoo 2009 ). The Auroville Masterplan 2025 envisions Auroville to be a circular township (Fig. 1 ) spread over a 20 sq. km (Auroville Foundation 2001 ). Initially planned for a population of 50,000 people, today Auroville today has 3305 residents hailing from 60 countries (Auroville Foundation 2021 ). Since its early days, there has been a divide between the “organicists” and the “constructionists” of Auroville (Kapur 2021 ). The organicists have a bottom-up vision of low impact and environmentally friendly development whereas the constructionists have a top-down vision of sticking with the original masterplan and realize an urban, dense version of Auroville.

A map of Auroville and its surrounding regions, with the main villages in the area

Auroville has served as a laboratory of low-cost and low-impact building construction, transportation, and city planning. Although the term sustainability has not been explicitly used in the Charter, it has been central to the city planning and building development process in Auroville (Walsky and Joshi 2013 ). Unlike many human settlements that negatively impact their ecology, the foundational project of Auroville was land restoration. The initial residents of Auroville were able to grow back parts of the Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest in and around Auroville using top-soil conservation and rainwater harvesting techniques (Blanchflower 2005 ). While the ecological restoration has been lauded both locally and globally, Namakkal ( 2012 ) argues that it is seldom acknowledged that the land was bought from local villagers at low prices and local labour was used to plant the forest as well as build the initial city. At the time of writing this paper, the Auroville Foundation still needs to secure 17% of the land in the city area and nearly 50% of the land for the green belt to realize the original masterplan. However, land prices have gone up substantially as have conflicts in acquiring this land for Auroville (Namakkal 2012 ).

Governance structure

While the Charter of Auroville says that “Auroville belongs to humanity as a whole” (Alfassa 1968 ), in reality, it is governed by a well-defined set of individuals. Auroville’s first few years, between 1968 and 1973, were guided directly by Mirra Alfassa. After her passing, there was a power struggle between the Sri Aurobindo Society, claiming control over the project, and the community members striving for autonomy (Kapur 2021 ).

The Government of India founded the Auroville Foundation Act in 1988 providing in the public interest, the acquisition of all assets and undertakings relatable to Auroville. These assets were ultimately vested in the Auroville Foundation which was formed in January 1991 (Auroville. 2015 ). The Auroville Foundation envisioned a notion of a planned future, resulting in a new masterplan in 1994. This masterplan encouraged participatory planning and recognized that the architectural vision needs to proceed in a democratic manner. This prompted the Auroville community to adopt a more structured form of governance. The Auroville Foundation has other governing institutions under it, namely: The Governing Board which has overall responsibility for Auroville’s development, The International Advisory Council, which advises the Governing Board on the management of the township and the Residents’ Assembly who organize activities relating to Auroville and formulate the master plan. Furthermore, there are committees and working groups for different aspects of development from waste management to building development.

Auroville is an example of the ‘bottom-up’ approach, in the sense that developments are decided and implemented by the community and the state level and national level governments get involved later (Sarkar 2015 ). An example of this is seen in the regular meetings held by the Town Development Council of Auroville which also conducted a weeklong workshop in 2019 for the community which covered themes such as place-making, dimensions of water and strategies for liveable cities and community planning (Ministry of Human Reource Development Government of India 2021 ).

Conflicts often arise between the interpretation of the initial masterplan and the present day realities and aspiration of the residents (Walsky and Joshi 2013 ). This is often rooted in the initial vision of Auroville as a city of 50,000 versus its current reality of being an ecovillage of around 3000 people. Spatially, this unusual growth pattern has been problematic in Auroville’s building and mobility planning (Venkitaraman 2017 ). At the time of writing this paper, there is a clash between the Residents’ Assembly and the Auroville Foundation over the felling of trees for the construction of the Crown Road project inside Auroville (The Hindu 2021 ). While the Residents’ Assembly wants a re-working of the original masterplan considering the ecological damage through tree cutting, the Auroville Foundation wants to move ahead with the original city vision.

Beyond its boundaries, Auroville is surrounded by numerous rural settlements, namely, Kuyilapalyam, Edayanchavadi, Alankuppam, Kottakarai, and Attankarai. The Auroville Village Action Group (AVAG) aims to help the village communities to strive towards sustainability and find plausible solutions to the problems of contemporary rural life. In September 1970, a charter was circulated among the sub-regional villages of Auroville, promising better employment opportunities and higher living standards with improved health and sanitation facilities (Social Research Centre Auroville 2005 ). Currently, there are about 13 groups for the development of the Auroville sub-region. However, Jukka ( 2006 ) points out that the regional development vision of Auroville is top-down and does not sufficiently engage with the villagers and their aspirations.

Auroville’s economic model

Auroville has also strived to move away from money as a foundation of society to a distinctive economic model exchange and sharing (Kapoor 2007 ). However, Auroville needs money to realize its multiple land and building projects. Auroville also receives various donations and grants. During 2018–2019, Auroville received around Rs. 2396 lakhs (around 4 million USD) under Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) and other donations. The Central Government of India supports the Auroville Foundation with annual grants for Auroville’s management and for the running costs of the Secretariat of the Foundation, collectively known as Grant-in-Aid. Auroville received a total of Rs. 1463 lakhs (around 2 million USD) as Grant-in-Aid during 2018–2019. The income generated by Auroville during this time was Rs. 687 lakhs (around 91,000 USD) (Ministry of Human Reource Development Government of India 2021 ).

Presently, the economy of Auroville is based on manufacturing units and services with agriculture being an important sector, and currently, there are about 100 small and medium manufacturing units. The service sector of Auroville comprises of construction and architectural services and research and training in various sectors (Auroville Foundation 2001 ). In addition to this, tourism is another important source of income generation for Auroville. As per the Annual Report of Auroville Foundation, the donations and income have not been consistent over the years. In this regard, Auroville’s growth pattern in terms of the economy has not been linear and it does not mimic the usual growth patterns associated with the development of counterparts, in terms of capitalization, finance, governance, and on key issues such as distribution policies and ownership rights (Thomas and Thomas 2013 ).

Auroville also benefits from labour from the surrounding villages. The nature of employment provided in Auroville to villages remains largely in low-paying jobs (Namakkal 2012 ). It can be argued that the fruits of Auroville’s development have not been equally shared with the surrounding villages and a feeling of ‘us and them’ still pervades. Striving for human unity is the central tenet of Auroville (Shinn 1984 ), however, it has struggled to do so with its immediate neighbours.

Striving for self-sufficiency

Auroville has strived for self-sufficiency in terms of food production from local farms, energy production from renewable sources like solar and wind sources and waste management.

Many prominent buildings of Auroville have been designed keeping in mind the self-sufficiency principle in Auroville. For example, the Solar Kitchen was designed by architect Suhasini Ayer as a demonstration project to tap the solar energy potential of the region. At present, this building is used for cooking meals thrice a day for over 1000 people. The Solar Kitchen also supports the organic farming sector in Auroville by being the primary purchaser of the locally grown products (Ayer 1997 ). Another example is the Auroville Earth Institute, renowned for its Compressed and Stabilized Earth Block (CSEB) technique, which constitute natural and locally found soil as one of its main ingredients (Figs. 2 and 3 ).

Compressed earth blocks manufactured by Auroville Earth Institute

A residence in Auroville constructed using compressed earth blocks

However, it is important to acknowledge that Auroville does not exist as a 100% self-sufficient bubble. For example, food produced in Auroville provides for only 15% of the consumption (Auroville Foundation 2004 ). An initial attempt to calculate the ecological footprint of Auroville estimates it to be 2.5 Ha, against the average footprint of an Indian of 0.8 Ha (Greenberg 1998 ). Furthermore, though Auroville has strived for material innovation in architecture, it has not been successful in achieving 25 sq. metres as the limit to individual living space (Walsky and Joshi 2013 ). This challenges the notion of Auroville continuing to be an ecovillage if it aspires to be a city of 50,000 people and might end up having substantial ecological impact on its surroundings.

Urban sustainability transformation in a rapidly urbanizing world runs into the risk of focusing on technological fixes while overlooking the social and ecological impacts of growth. In this light, bottom-up initiatives like ecovillages serve as a laboratory for testing alternative and holistic models of development. Auroville, a 53-year-old ecovillage in southern India, has achieved this to a certain extent. Auroville is a showcase of land regeneration, biodiversity restoration, alternative building technologies as well as experimentations in alternative governance and economic models. In this paper, we have critically examined some achievements and challenges that Auroville has faced in realizing its initial vision of being a “city that the world needs” (Alfassa 1968 ). Lessons learnt from Auroville help deepen our understanding of ecovillages as sites of fostering alternative development practices. Here we discuss three aspects of this research:

Alternate lifestyles and values in the context of an ecovillage : Ecovillages are niches providing space for realizing alternative values and lifestyles. However, ecovillages seldom exist in a vacuum. They are physically situated in existing societies and economies. Although residents in an ecovillage seek to achieve collective identity by creating an alternative society, an ecovillage is embedded within a larger culture and thus, the prevailing ideologies of the dominant society affect the ecovillage (Ergas 2010 ) as seen in Auroville. This can be noticed between the material and knowledge flows in and out of Auroville. Furthermore, the India of the 1970s when Auroville was born with socialist values is very different from present-day India where material and capitalistic aspirations are on the rise. These are reflected in higher land prices and living costs in and around Auroville. Amidst the transforming political landscape of India in the 1970s, there were implications which were seen in the character of architectural production. Auroville welcomed and immersed itself into this era of experimentation. These developments form an integral part of the ethos of Auroville. To achieve its initial visions, Auroville depends on multiple external economic sources. In analysing ecovillages, it is important to critically examine the broader context within which they are located and how they influence and, in turn, are influenced by their contexts.

Even though Auroville’s architects and urban planners remain committed to their belief that architecture is a primary tool of community - building, decades later, the developments seem to have progressed at a slow pace. The number of permanently settled residents in Auroville has barely reached 2000 currently and the overall urban design remains fragmentary. Despite witnessing a slower rate of progress, it has been able to sustain a culture of innovation and Auroville remains utopian in its aim to create an alternative lifestyle (Scriver and Srivastava 2016 ).

Governance, economy, and self-sufficiency in an ecovillage that wants to be an eco-city : In growth-based societies, ecovillages present the possibility of providing an alternative vision of degrowth (Xue 2014 ). However, Auroville currently functions as an ecovillage that aspires to be an eco-city as per its initial masterplan. This growth-based model sometimes conflicts with Auroville’s vision of being a self-reliant, non-monetary society. Given the urgent need to remain within our planetary limits, ecovillages like Auroville could re-evaluate their initial growth-based visions and explore alternatives for achieving sustainability and well-being. The visions of ecovillages should thus not be set in stone, but rather remain flexible to evolving ideas and practices (Ergas 2010 ).

Similarly, governance structures might need a re-evaluation with changing priorities within the ecovillage as well as a need to be inclusive of regional visions and voices. It would be intriguing to explore on what kind of governance model/leadership is best suited to fulfil the aims of an ecovillage. Auroville seems to follow the elements of sustainability-oriented governance: empowerment, engagement, communication, openness and transparency (Bubna-Litic 2008 ), yet it is seen that conflicts arise. One solution to this could be greater external engagement with government and continuing to engage the external community about Auroville. Generally, intentional communities are organized by embracing the ideology of consensus, but it remains to be seen whether the consensus decision-making model works to its full potential in the context of alternative lifestyles. When individuals seek alternative lifestyles in the current world, there is a shift from globalized values towards local community autonomy, this shift demands a need for processes that allow for a different and more equitable approach to governance (Cunningham and Wearing 2013 ).

Ecovillages in the Global South : Situating ecovillages in the Global South requires a nuanced examination of the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability that the ecovillage aims to achieve (Dias et al. 2017 ; Litfin 2009 ). In the case of Auroville, Auroville has helped bring back ecologically restorative practices in forestry, agriculture, and architecture in the region. However, the average Aurovillian has a higher standard of living than the neighbouring villagers. This in-turn influences the material consumption practices within the community. The lessons in sustainable living, in ecovillages located in the Global South, need not be unidirectional (from the ecovillage to the surrounding society). Rather, the ecovillage also stands to lean from the existing models of low-impact living.

Ecovillages in the Global South such as Auroville face similar problems related to Governance as seen in some other ecovillages in the developed world such as The Aldinga Arts Village in South Australia (Bubna-Litic 2008 ) and in Sweden (Bardici 2014 ). However, despite the issues related to consensus in Governance, the ecovillages are noted for their sustainable innovations.

Auroville’s sustainable measures have been endorsed by the Government of India as well. The Auroville Master Plan for 2000–2025 has been dedicated to creating an environmentally sustainable urban settlement which integrates the neighbourhood rural areas. The surrounding Green Belt, intended to be a fertile zone is presently being used for applied research in various sectors such as water management, food production, and soil conservation. The results promise a replicable model which could be used in urban and rural areas alike (Kapoor 2007 ).

To address the expansion and re-evaluation of the larger socio-economic context of Auroville and its socio-ecological impacts, as enunciated by Dias et al. ( 2017 ) and Kutting and Lipschutz (2009), a proposal for a sustainable regional plan was prepared in 2012 jointly by Government of India, ADEME (French Environment and Energy Management Agency), INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) and PondyCAN (An NGO which works to preserve and enhance the natural, social, cultural and spiritual environment of Pondicherry). The report was prepared and aimed to be a way forward for unique and diverse communities to grow together as a single entity and to develop a holistic model for future development in this region. This report takes into consideration the surrounding villages and districts around Auroville: Puducherry, Viluppuram and Cuddalore (ADEME, INTACH, PondyCAN,, and Government of India 2012 ).

The concept of eco-cities in urban planning is defined as utopias, hard to achieve standards of human settlements. Ecovillages emerge as small-scale realization of the ideas of an eco-city. Over the years, the alternative practices of Auroville have served as an educational platform for researchers, students, and the civil society alike. However, realizing alternative ecological lifestyles, governance and economic system and self-sufficiency struggle with challenges and contradictions as the ecovillage interact with a larger growth-oriented capitalistic system. Although ecovillages are sites of experimentation, they are seldom insular space. Regional impacts of and on ecovillage are important in analysing their developmental trajectories. Finally, the vision of ecovillages needs to evolve as the ecovillage as well is surroundings grow and change. Experiments in ecovillages like Auroville remind us that alternative visions of human settlements come with opportunities and challenges and are a work-in-progress in achieving a more sustainable future. There is further potential to understand the consensus-based approach and the governance models in an ecovillage in a better manner.

It can be deduced from the findings that ecovillages as catalysts of urban sustainability have a lot of potentials and challenges. The potential is in terms of devising an alternate lifestyle based on an alternative style of governance while the challenges include the local ecological impact and the difficulty in consensus about certain things. There is a future possibility to explore other conditions which facilitate the mainstream translation of ecovillage practices and how future ecovillages can progress to the next level (Kim 2016 ; Norbeck 1999 ).

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

ADEME, INTACH, PondyCAN, & Government of India (2012) Sustainable Regional Planning Framework for Puducherry. Viluppuram, Auroville and Cuddalore

Google Scholar  

Alfassa, M. (1968). The Auroville Charter: a new vision of power and promise for people choosing another way of life. https://auroville.org/contents/1

Alterman R, Harris D, Hill M (1984) The impact of public participation on planning: the case of the Derbyshire Structure Plan ( UK). Town Plann Rev 55 (2):177–196. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.55.2.f78767r1xu185563

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson E (2015) Prologue. In: Lockyer J, Veteto JR (eds) Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages. Oxford, pp 1–18

Auroville Foundation. (2004). No Title.

Auroville Foundation. (2021). Auroville Census.

Auroville SRC (2005) Socio-economic survey of Auroville employees, p 2000

Auroville. (2015). Orgnaisational History and Involvement of Government of India. https://auroville.org/contents/850

Ayer S (1997) Auroville Design Consultants

Bardici VM (2014) A discourse analysis of Eco-city in the Swedish urban context - construction, cultural bias, selectivity, framing and political action, p 32

Barton, H. (2013). Sustainable Communities. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315870649

Bauhardt C (2014) Solutions to the crisis? The Green New Deal, Degrowth, and the Solidarity Economy: Alternatives to the capitalist growth economy from an ecofeminist economics perspective. Ecol Econ 102 :60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.015

Blanchflower P (2005) Restoration of the Tropical Dry Evergreen Forest of Peninsular India. Biodiversity 6(1):17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2005.9712755

Boyer RHW (2015) Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: comparing the diffusion pathways of three ecovillage projects. Environ Plann A Econ Space 47(2):320–337. https://doi.org/10.1068/a140250p

Bubna-Litic K (2008) The Aldinga Arts Ecovillage. Governance for Sustainability, pp 93–102

Campbell S (1996) Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development. J Am Plann Assoc 62 (3):296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696

Cunningham PA, Wearing SL (2013) The Politics of Consensus: An Exploration of the Cloughjordan Ecovillage, Ireland. Cosmopolitan Civil Soc 5:1–28 https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/27731

Dawson, J., & Lucas, C. (2006). Ecovillages: new frontiers for sustainability. Green Books.

Dias MA, Loureiro CFB, Chevitarese L, Souza CDME (2017) The meaning and relevance of ecovillages for the construction of sustainable soceital alternatives. Ambiente Sociedade 20(3):79–96. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0083v2032017

Edward G, Matthew E, K. (2010) The greenness of cities;Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. J Urban Econ 67(3):404–418

Ergas C (2010) A model of sustainable living: Collective identity in an urban ecovillage. Organ Environ 23 (1):32–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609360324

Fischer F (2017) Practicing Participatory Environmental Governance: Ecovillages and the Global Ecovillage Movement. In: Climate Crisis and the Democratic Prospect :Participatory Governance in Sustainable Communities, Oxford, pp 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199594917.001.0001

Foundation A (2001) The Auroville Universal Township Master Plan , Perspective, p 2025 https://www.auroville.info/ACUR/masterplan/index.htm

Gibson-Graham J (2008) Diverse Economies:performative practices for “other worlds.”. Progress Human Geography 32(5):613–632

Gilman, R. (1991). The Eco-Village Challenge. In Context. https://www.context.org/iclib/ic29/

Greenberg, D. (1998). Auroville’s Ecological Footprints. Geocommons.

Hall R (2015) The ecovillage experience as an evidence base for national wellbeing strategies. Intellect Econ 9 (1):30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intele.2015.07.001

The Hindu. (2021). Auroville residents protest uprooting of trees for contentious Crown Project. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/auroville-residents-protest-uprooting-of-trees-for-contentious-crown-project/article37835625.ece#

Hopkins R (2008) The Transition Handbook From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience

IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Joss S (2010a) Eco-cities: A global survey 2009. WIT Transact Ecol Environ 129:239–250. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC100211

Joss, Simon. (2010b). Eco-Cities — A Global Survey 2009 Part A : Eco-City Profiles. Governance & Sustainability: Innovating for Environmental & Technological Futures, May.

Jukka, J. (2006). Jukka Jouhki Imagining the Other Orientalism and Occidentalism in Tamil-European Relations in South India. In Building (Issue September).

Kapoor R (2007) Auroville: A spiritual-social experiment in human unity and evolution. Futures 39(5):632–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.10.009

Kapur, A. (2021). Better to Have Gone: Love, Death, and the Quest for Utopia in Auroville. Scribner Book Company.

Kim MY (2016) The Influences of an Eco-village towards Urban Sustainability: A case study of two Swedish eco-villages

Kirby A (2003) Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study. J Environ Psycho 23 (3):323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00025-2

Kundoo A (2009) Roger Anger: research on beauty: architecture. Jovis, pp 1953–2008

Litfin K (2009) Reinventing the future: The global ecovillage movement as a holistic knowledge community. In: Kütting G, Lipschutz R (eds) Environmental Governance: Knowledge and Power in a Local-Global World. Routledge, pp 124–142. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880104

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lockyer J, Veteto JR (2013) Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia

Ministry of Human Reource Development Government of India. (2021). Auroville Foundation: Annual Report and Accounts(2018-19). https://aurovillefoundation.org.in/publications/annual-report/

Mössner S, Miller B (2015) Sustainability in One Place? Dilemmas of Sustainability Governance in the Freiburg Metropolitan Region. Regions Magazine 300(1):18–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13673882.2015.11668692

Namakkal J (2012) European Dreams, Tamil Land: Auroville and the Paradox of a Postcolonial Utopia. J Study Radicalism 6 (1):59–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsr.2012.0006

Norbeck, M. (1999). Individual Community Environment: Lessons from nine Swedish ecovillages. http://www.ekoby.org/index.html

Pickerill J (2017) What are we fighting for? Ideological posturing and anarchist geographies. Dial Human Geography 7 (3):251–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820617732914

Price OM, Ville S, Heffernan E, Gibbons B, Johnsson M (2020) Finding convergence: Economic perspectives and the economic practices of an Australian ecovillage. Environ Innov Soc Trans 34(April 2019):209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.12.007

Register, R. (1987). Ecocity Berkeley : building cities for a healthy future. Berkeley, Calif. : North Atlantic Books, 1987. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910124360102121

Roelvink G, Gibson-Graham J (2009) A Postcaptialist politics of dwelling:ecological humanities and community economies in coversation. Austrailian Human Rev 46:145–158 http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/2009/05/01/a-postcapitalist-politics-of-dwelling-ecological-humanities-and-community-economies-in-conversation/

Roseland M (1997) Dimensions of the eco-city. Cities 14(4):197–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(97)00003-6

Sarkar AN (2015) Eco-Innovations in Designing Ecocity, Ecotown and Aerotropolis. J Architect Eng Technol 05 (01):1–15. https://doi.org/10.4172/2168-9717.1000161

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Scott AJ, Storper M (2015) The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory. Int J Urban Regional Res 39(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12134

Scriver, P., & Srivastava, A. (2016). Building utopia: 50 years of Auroville. The Architectural Review. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/building-utopia-50-years-of-auroville

Sen, P. K. (2018). Sri Aurobindo: His Life and Yoga 2nd Harper Collins Publishers India.

Shinn LD (1984) Auroville: Visionary Images and Social Consequences in a South Indian Utopian Community. Religious Stud 20 (2):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500016024

Smith A (2011) The Transition Town Network: A Review of Current Evolutions and Renaissance. Social Movement Studies 10(1):99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2011.545229

Snow DA, Soule SA, Kriesi H (2004) In: Snow DA, Soule SA, Kriesi H (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470999103

Thomas H, Thomas M (2013) Economics for People and Earth - The Auroville Case 1968-2008. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33040.40967

United Nations. (1987). Our common future: report of the world commission on environment and development 0, 0. https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783

Book   Google Scholar  

Van Bussel LGJ, De Haan N, Remme RP, Lof ME, De Groot R (2020) Community-based governance: Implications for ecosystem service supply in Berg en Dal, the Netherlands. Ecological Indicators 117(June):106510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106510

Venkitaraman, A. K. (2017). Addressing Resilience in Transportation in Futurustic Cities: A case of Auroville,Tamil Nadu, India. International Conference on Sustainable Built Environments , 2017. https://aurorepo.in/id/eprint/78/

Waerther S (2014) Sustainability in ecovillages – a reconceptualization. Int J Manage Applied Research 1(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.11.14-001

Wagner F (2012) Realizing Utopia: Ecovillage Endeavors and Academic Approaches. RCC Perspectives 8 :81–94 http://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/ecovillage_research_review_0.pdf

Walsky T, Joshi N (2013) Realizing Utopia : Auroville’s Housing Challenges and the Cost of Sustainability. Abacus 8 (1):1–8 https://aurorepo.in/id/eprint/110/

Wolfram M. (2017). Grassroots Niches in Urban Contexts: Exploring Governance Innovations for Sustainable Development in Seoul. Proc Eng 198, 622–641 (Urban Transitions Conference, Shanghai, September 2016)

Xue J (2014) Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban planner’s perspective. Ecol Econ 105:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.003

Download references

Acknowledgements

Code availability.

Code availability is not applicable to this article as no codes were used during the current study.

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8501, Japan

Abhishek Koduvayur Venkitaraman

Leibniz-Institut für ökologische Raumentwicklung (www.ioer.de), Research Area Landscape, Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Weberplatz 1, 01217, Dresden, Germany

Neelakshi Joshi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Koduvayur Venkitaraman .

Ethics declarations

Consent to participate.

Consent to participate is not applicable to this article as no participants were involved.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval is not applicable to this article since the study is based on secondary data.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Koduvayur Venkitaraman, A., Joshi, N. A critical examination of a community-led ecovillage initiative: a case of Auroville, India. Clim Action 1 , 15 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00016-3

Download citation

Received : 29 December 2021

Accepted : 24 June 2022

Published : 08 July 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44168-022-00016-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Global South

This article is cited by

The paradox of collective climate action in rural u.s. ecovillages: ethnographic reflections and perspectives.

• Chelsea Schelly
• Joshua Lockyer

npj Climate Action (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website. To learn more, including how to block cookies, read our privacy policy .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Collaboration Platform
• Data Portal
• Reporting Tool
• PRI Academy
• PRI Applications

• Back to parent navigation item
• What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?
• PRI 2021-24 strategy
• A blueprint for responsible investment
• About the PRI
• Annual report
• Public communications policy
• Financial information
• Procurement
• PRI sustainability
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion for our employees
• Meet the team
• Board members
• Board committees
• 2023 PRI Board annual elections
• Signatory General Meeting (SGM)
• Signatory rights
• Serious violations policy
• Formal consultations
• Signatories
• Signatory resources
• Become a signatory
• Get involved
• Signatory directory
• Quarterly signatory update
• Multi-lingual resources
• Espacio Hispanohablante
• Programme Francophone
• Reporting & assessment
• R&A Updates
• Public signatory reports
• Progression pathways
• Showcasing leadership
• The PRI Awards
• News & events
• The PRI podcast
• News & press
• Upcoming events
• PRI in Person 2024
• All events & webinars
• Industry events
• Past events
• PRI in Person 2023 highlights
• PRI in Person & Online 2022 highlights
• PRI China Conference: Investing for Net-Zero and SDGs
• PRI Digital Forums
• Webinars on demand
• Investment tools
• Introductory guides to responsible investment
• Principles to Practice
• Stewardship
• Collaborative engagements
• Active Ownership 2.0
• Listed equity
• Passive investments
• Fixed income
• Credit risk and ratings
• Private debt
• Securitised debt
• Sovereign debt
• Sub-sovereign debt
• Private markets
• Private equity
• Real estate
• Climate change for private markets
• Infrastructure and other real assets
• Infrastructure
• Hedge funds
• Investing for nature: Resource hub
• Asset owner resources
• Strategy, policy and strategic asset allocation
• Mandate requirements and RfPs
• Manager selection
• Manager appointment
• Manager monitoring
• Asset owner DDQs
• Sustainability issues
• Environmental, social and governance issues
• Environmental issues
• Circular economy
• Social issues
• Social issues - case studies
• Social issues - podcasts
• Social issues - webinars
• Social issues - blogs
• Cobalt and the extractives industry
• Clothing and Apparel Supply Chain
• Human rights
• Human rights - case studies
• Modern slavery and labour rights
• Just transition
• Governance issues
• Tax fairness
• Responsible political engagement
• Cyber security
• Executive pay
• Corporate purpose
• Anti-corruption
• Whistleblowing
• Director nominations
• Climate change
• The PRI and COP28
• Inevitable Policy Response
• UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
• Sustainability outcomes
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Sustainable markets
• Sustainable financial system
• Driving meaningful data
• Private retirement systems and sustainability
• Academic blogs
• Academic Seminar series
• Introduction to responsible investing academic research
• Our policy approach
• Policy reports
• Consultations and letters
• Global policy
• Policy toolkit
• Policy engagement handbook
• Regulation database
• A Legal Framework for Impact
• Fiduciary duty
• Australia policy
• Canada Policy
• China policy
• Stewardship in China
• EU taxonomy
• Japan policy
• SEC ESG-Related Disclosure

• More from navigation items

STOA SDG case study

2020-07-27T07:13:00+01:00

Signatory type: Private equity investor / Asset owner Operating region: Developing countries Assets under management: €180 million SDG targets: SDGs 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 13 Practice area: Engagement for impact

Why we use the SDGs for engagement

STOA’s 1 mandate is to support socio-economic development and tackle climate change in Africa and developing countries in other regions. Our core aims therefore align closely with several of the SDGs, and the goals themselves provide us with a framework for assessing how we can align environmental and social outcomes more effectively, rather than looking at each issue on a standalone basis.

We make targeted investments in infrastructure and energy projects: by investing in accessible, functional and clean energy projects in emerging economies, STOA can contribute to positive climate action and create maximum benefits for local communities (as shown in the diagram below). For each investment, the organisation defines strategic impact objectives to achieve positive and measurable social and environmental outcomes aligned with the SDGs.

Figure 1. STOA’s investment process

How we consider the SDGs in investment

STOA integrates SDG considerations at each stage of the investment cycle: the goals are embedded in our approach, implemented through an impact-centred screening and investment decision methodology, and monitored using SDG indicators at a project and portfolio level.

At a strategic level, we target 30% of our funds on projects with an inherent climate benefit (i.e. infrastructure or energy projects that provide lower carbon solutions/options than typical alternatives), in support of SDG 13 on Climate Action; and 50% of funds on bridging the infrastructure gap in Africa (in line with SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). Other indicators such as job creation, in line with SDG 8 on Decent Work and Economic Growth, and the share of women in management positions, in support of SDG 5 on Gender Equality, are also fundamental to all projects that we invest in.

These goals are then integrated into STOA’s global impact scoring tool, which forms an essential part of our due diligence process. Through its application we can identify a project’s potential outcomes, and thereby select projects that contribute positively to the SDGs for our portfolio. Any project we select must fall into at least one of three pre-defined outcome areas: accessible, functional and clean. We use the SDG Index 2 as a reference in assessing a project’s potential and the country’s needs.

Our impact framework is based on three key tools: a screening system, a set of measurement indicators, and an impact modelling tool. The first tool generates an impact score by measuring how accessible, functional, and clean a project is. The second helps measure the progress made following an investment, using 65 indicators selected from providers such as the Harmonized Indicators for Private Sector Operations (HIPSO), and the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN)’s IRIS+ system. The third models STOA’s impacts on a macroeconomic scale.

Figure 2: Sample project screening tool

In our screening tool, each outcome area is scored between 0 and 3 using the following criteria:

• High impact – High country need (top-right) - Projects with high potential to improve a country’s infrastructure service, where need is high, score 3 points;
• Low impact – High country need (top-left) - Projects with low potential to improve a country’s infrastructure service, where need is high, score 2 points;
• High Impact – Low country need (bottom-right) - Projects with high potential to improve a country’s infrastructure service, where need is low, score 1 point;
• Low impact – Low country need (bottom-left) - Projects with low potential to improve a country’s infrastructure service, where need is low, score 0 points.

These scores are then submitted to the board alongside other financial and ESG due diligence materials as part of the final decision-making process for an investment.

Once a project is in STOA’s portfolio, we collect direct and indirect outcomes-related data – for example, on employment, general economic activity, and carbon emissions – on an annual basis. STOA records the data in its impact modelling tool, which generates a project scorecard and updates the portfolio dashboard.

Example: Hydroelectric Power Project, Cameroon

In 2018, STOA invested in a major hydroelectric power project in Cameroon alongside Électricité de France (EDF), the Cameroonian State, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and infrastructure investment platform Africa 50.

The project, led by the Cameroonian Nachtigal Hydro Power Company (NHPC), will see the construction and operation of a 420MW run-of-river hydroelectric power plant that will eventually supply 30% of the country’s power generation. Due to be commissioned in 2023, it will be the largest Public-Private Partnership (PPP) ever developed in Africa in the energy sector.

The project aims to meet demand for increased electricity in Cameroon while generating energy at a competitive cost and playing a decisive role in the country’s energy transition. This should support outcomes in line with SDG 7 on Affordable and Clean Energy and SDG 13 on Climate Action.

Scoring 2.3/3, it is one of the highest-scoring projects in STOA’s investment portfolio.

Figure 3. Hydroelectric Power Project screening score

During our due diligence, Cameroon was identified as having a very high need for a greater and more reliable supply of electricity. Only 60% of the population has access to electricity 3  and on average, 8 power outages occur each month 4 .

Once fully operational, the project is expected to supply clean energy equivalent to the consumption of 10 million people in Cameroon – approximately 40% of the country’s current population. Moreover, nearly 850 kilotons of CO 2 are expected to be avoided each year, compared with using other current or projected sources of electricity in the country.

A focus on SDG outcomes and consideration of frameworks such as the IFC Performance Standards helped guide the development of an ambitious management system targeting a range of environmental and social issues related to the project.

This includes a local economic development action plan and measures dedicated to biodiversity. These aim to avoid, reduce and compensate for negative outcomes associated with the project during the construction and development phases, and support more positive outcomes in line with different SDGs.

For example, working with the IFC and six specialised local non-governmental organisations, NHPC trained its staff in the prevention of gender-based violence, in support of SDG 5 on Gender Equality.

Moreover, the infrastructure project is one of a small number that meets the G7 Development Finance Institutions’ 2X Challenge criteria regarding female employment 5 , further highlighting our alignment with SDG 5 and SDG 8 on Decent Work and Economic Growth.

1 STOA is an investment vehicle resulting from the collaboration between two French major public financial institutions. Our processes and capabilities are informed by and benefit from Agence Française de Développement’s internal capacity on sustainable development and Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations’ track record on structuring infrastructure projects at a national scale. 2  Sustainable Development Report 2020 3  The World Bank: Databank.Sustainable Energy for All 4  The World Bank: Enterprise Surveys 5  2X Challenge

• Emerging Markets
• How infrastructure investors can contribute to SDG outcomes
• HQ: Developed Markets

Related content

PRI and IIGCC policy briefing on key sustainable finance policy priorities for the UK

Labelled bonds and loans: Do they do what they say on the tin?

Managing human rights issues in the value chain

Using data across the investment chain to drive sustainability outcomes in private markets

More from Sustainable Development Goals

EdenTree Investment Management: Clean water, energy and climate change

Closing the funding gap: responsible investment in emerging markets

Closing the funding gap: The case for ESG incorporation and sustainability outcomes in emerging markets

East Capital: Assessing SDG outcomes across the value chain

• News and press
• Annual Report
• PRI governance
• Privacy policy
• The PRI is an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact .

• PRI Association, 25 Camperdown Street, London, E1 8DZ, UK
• Company no: 7207947
• +44 (0)20 3714 3141
• [email protected]
• PRI DISCLAIMER The information contained on this website is meant for the purposes of information only and is not intended to be investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is it intended to be relied upon in making an investment or other decision. All content is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not providing advice on legal, economic, investment or other professional issues and services. PRI Association is not responsible for the content of websites and information resources that may be referenced. The access provided to these sites or the provision of such information resources does not constitute an endorsement by PRI Association of the information contained therein. PRI Association is not responsible for any errors or omissions, for any decision made or action taken based on information on this website or for any loss or damage arising from or caused by such decision or action. All information is provided “as-is” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy or timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Content authored by PRI Association For content authored by PRI Association, except where expressly stated otherwise, the opinions, recommendations, findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed are those of PRI Association alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of any contributors or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment (individually or as a whole). It should not be inferred that any other organisation referenced endorses or agrees with any conclusions set out. The inclusion of company examples does not in any way constitute an endorsement of these organisations by PRI Association or the signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. While we have endeavoured to ensure that information has been obtained from reliable and up-to-date sources, the changing nature of statistics, laws, rules and regulations may result in delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information. Content authored by third parties The accuracy of any content provided by an external contributor remains the responsibility of such external contributor. The views expressed in any content provided by external contributors are those of the external contributor(s) alone, and are neither endorsed by, nor necessarily correspond with, the views of PRI Association or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment other than the external contributor(s) named as authors.

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Through Collaborative Innovation: Evidence from Four European Initiatives

Laura mariani.

1 Department of Management, University of Bergamo, Via Dei Caniana, 2, 24127 Bergamo, Italy

Benedetta Trivellato

2 Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, 20126 Milan, Italy

Mattia Martini

3 Department of Business and Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, 20126 Milan, Italy

Elisabetta Marafioti

The role to be played by multi-stakeholder partnerships in addressing the ‘wicked problems’ of sustainable development is made explicit by the seventeenth Sustainable Development Goal. But how do these partnerships really work? Based on the analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives implemented in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and France, this study explores the roles and mechanisms that collaborating actors may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development, with a particular focus on non-profit organizations. The results suggest that collaborative innovations for sustainability contribute simultaneously to the fulfilment of different Sustainable Development Goals, reaching beyond their original intent, and that the value being created has the potential to reinforce such roles and mechanisms. These partnerships are prompted and managed by non-profit organizations that act as metagovernors of collaborative innovation processes as they play the roles of cultural spreaders, enablers, relational brokers, service provides, and influencers. These findings will help policy-makers and practitioners in the public and non-profit sector to identify and utilize emerging opportunities for value creation through collaborative innovation, and to better design existing and prospective collaborative efforts aimed at sustainable objectives, thereby supporting progress towards the implementation of Agenda 2030.

Introduction

In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Development Agenda. At the core of this agenda are the seventeen goals that spell out a vision for a sustainable development, including a critical role to be played by collaboration for sustainability (Schaltegger et al., 2018 ). These Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) follow the previous eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which, by setting up measurable and time-bound objectives, helped “promote global awareness, political accountability, improved metrics, social feedback, and public pressures.” (Sachs, 2012 ; p. 2206). Both the MDGs and the SDGs have their roots in a view of sustainable development that encompasses the so-called “triple bottom line approach to human wellbeing” (Sachs, 2012 ), integrating economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability (Hammer & Pivo, 2017 ). The origins of this approach date back to the mid-1990s, which saw the environmental agenda broadening to include the triple bottom line, and an increasing consensus that partnerships among businesses and stakeholders are of critical importance to pursue this “much broader, and more demanding, sustainable development agenda” (Elkington, 1998 ). Compared to the MDGs, the SDGs similarly feature an increased emphasis on the role of partnerships between public and private sector (both for-profit and non-profit) organizations, as embodied by the 17th goal, Partnerships for the Goals. Sustainable development, in fact, is a complex concept, dealing with different temporal and spatial scales and with multiple stakeholders. As such, it requires a pluralistic approach to deal with multiple actors and multiple levels, so as to create a common vision of the planet’s future, and to resolve potential trade-offs (van Zeijil-Rozema et al., 2008 ). This need for an integrated approach to tackle the SDGs is, in fact, a pillar of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where the Goals and the targets are meant to stimulate action in the following five areas: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships. A key part of the 2030 Agenda is also the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which contains concrete measures in relation to public and private resources, international trade and aid, and a range of issues related to science, technology, innovation and capacity-building, and data, monitoring and follow-up (UN General Assembly, 2015 ).

Sustainable development challenges include issues such as the consequences of climate change, inequalities in access to health and education, integration of immigrants and refugees, and several others which embody the ‘wicked problems’ (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ; Torfing & Ansell, 2017 ) that are best addressed through forms of governance involving partnerships and multi-actors’ networks (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ; Van Huijstee et al., 2007 ). Within the New Public Governance approach (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a , 2014b ; Crosby & Bryson, 2010 ; Koppenjan, 2012 ; Osborne, 2006 , 2010 ), such wicked problems may be fruitfully addressed through collaborative innovation, which involves constructive integration of partners’ differences and resources, and the development of new solutions that disrupt established practices (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ). Despite its promises, the collaborative innovation framework draws the attention mostly to the ‘meso’ level of the collaboration and of the arenas where collaborative processes take place, and to the ‘macro’ level of policy-making, rather than to the ‘micro’ level of the collaborating organizations. Moreover, although collaborative innovation is meant to involve both public and private (for profit and non-profit) actors, and private actors are acknowledged as its potential metagovernors, the specific role of non public actors within these processes remains relatively underexplored (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ).

In this context, we believe that a focus on the role of collaborating actors, and on non-profits in particular, is needed in order to obtain a better understanding (a) of the relevant roles, activities, and processes and how they contribute to collaborative innovation outputs; and (b) of the factors that may influence such roles, activities, and processes. Therefore, in this paper we propose that the collaborative innovation literature may be fruitfully integrated with contributions from the market/societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Kotler & Levy, 1969 ; Liao et al., 2001 ), stakeholder theory (Abzug & Webb, 1999 ; Fassin et al., 2017 ; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 ), and grassroots sustainable innovation (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ) in order to explore the roles and dynamics that allow such collaborative innovation to occur, and to translate into sustainable development improvements. In fact, an improved understanding of these dimensions at the meso and micro levels allows to better support (for instance through institutional design) and implement (e.g. thanks to greater awareness of drivers and barriers) existing and prospective collaborative endeavors aimed at sustainable objectives, and relatedly the progress towards the implementation of Agenda 2030.

In summary, multi-stakeholder collaboration is seen as a potentially crucial instrument to address the wicked problems of sustainable development both by the SDGs and by the collaborative governance and collaborative innovation literature. However, the roles and mechanisms that collaborating organizations and individuals may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development are not very clear. We therefore address this issue through our first research question: (1) How can multi-stakeholder collaboration contribute to improvements in sustainable development?

Moreover, the collaborative innovation framework explicitly concedes that not only the collaborating participants but also the metagovernor of the collaboration may be a non-profit organization (NPO) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). However, most studies within this literature highlight the role of a public sector organization as metagovernor: exploring the conditions where such role is played by a NPO may then be important, because it widens the scope for such critical role to be played in finding solutions to wicked problems. We focus on this issue through our second research question: (2) What role(s) do non-profit organizations play within multi-stakeholder collaborations that contribute to sustainable development?

In order to address these questions, we conducted a multiple-case study analysis of four innovation initiatives implemented across Europe. This specific empirical setting was chosen because the four initiatives result from collaborations among various actors, including NPOs in their different forms, and because they represent a befitting exemplification of how the above-mentioned ‘wicked problems’ may be addressed. We refer to these initiatives as ‘collaborative innovations for sustainability’, which group together networks of actors who generate novel bottom–up solutions that respond to the interests and values of the communities involved (Smith et al., 2014 ). In summary, our ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of these networks to address ‘wicked and unruly problems’ (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ) through collaborative innovation.

Theoretical Background

Our theoretical framework is built on the premise that collaboration can play a crucial role in solving societal problems, especially within the inter-organizational partnerships that are one of the pillars of the SDGs, and which are the object of analysis in this work. As detailed below, we propose an integration of two different literature strands, so as to connect the ‘meso’ level of the collaboration / network of partners with the ‘micro’ level of the individual collaborating organizations. A meso-level perspective—grounded in New Public Governance theory (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a , 2014b ; Crosby & Bryson, 2010 ; Koppenjan, 2012 ; Osborne, 2006 , 2010 )—sheds light on how multi-stakeholder collaboration may help to address the ‘wicked problems’ of sustainable development. A micro-level (organizational) perspective focusing on individual non-profit organizations—and grounded in the non-profit management and market orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Kotler & Levy, 1969 ; Liao et al., 2001 )—emphasizes that an NPO needs to adopt a so-called ‘societal orientation’ to survive and fulfil its mission, with collaboration being a major component of such orientation. Joining these two perspectives highlights the positive role to be played by collaboration both for society and for individual NPOs, in the latter case through its impact on organizational performance (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), with the implication that increased micro-level collaborative behaviour will contribute to improved outcomes also at the meso and ultimately macro level.

Societal Orientation and Collaboration

The micro-perspective draws on the work of those authors who have sought to adapt the concept of ‘market orientation’ from the private for-profit sector (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993 ; Slater & Narver, 1994 ) to the specificities of the private non-profit sector, while also integrating insights from stakeholder theory. This evolution emanates from the acknowledgement that a focus primarily on customers and profitability (Narver & Slater, 1990 ) is not appropriate for the study of NPOs, which have a wider variety of critical stakeholders in addition to customers and shareholders (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ). Moreover, stakeholder management as a critical component of a firm’s strategy was also born in the for-profit sector (Freeman, 1984 ), to be later extended to a more comprehensive stakeholder theory, including an increased focus on non-profits as particular stakeholders of a focal for-profit organization (e.g. Abzug & Webb, 1999 ), and on NPOs being themselves the focal organizations dealing with a variety of internal and external stakeholders (e.g. Fassin et al., 2017 ; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 ).

In this context, the ‘societal orientation’ literature (e.g. Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) has emerged by pointing out what should be the key concerns for NPOs to ensure organizational performance, which include: attention to their stakeholders (e.g. users/beneficiaries, donors, employees and volunteers, competitors, and other stakeholder groups), collaborative orientation, and interfunctional coordination. Both Liao et al. ( 2001 ) and Duque-Zuluaga and Schneider ( 2008 ) consider collaborative orientation as a “crucial component of the societal orientation construct” as “(p)artnerships can ensure continuity of operation, increase the capability of solving problems, and contribute to improving the efficiency of service delivery” (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 , p. 35). In a similar vein, Yin and Jamali ( 2020 ) suggest that value creation within social partnerships essentially depends on actors adopting a ‘partnership logic’, with the latter encompassing joint ownership of the issues being addressed, creation of synergy among opposite yet complementary goals, creative use of limited resources, and tolerance for divergent interests and unbalanced power relationships among partners.

Multi-actor Collaboration as a Driver for Innovation

Collaborative strategies have been shown to be more advantageous than authoritative or competitive strategies especially when dealing with ‘wicked problems’, i.e. those where no definitive statement can be made about the problem itself, where stakeholders champion alternative ways to frame it and to propose solutions, and where constraints to the solving process are constantly changing (Roberts, 2000 ). Moreover, there is now a consensus among scholars of public and non-profit management and administration that especially fruitful are those collaborations among actors from the public, private for-profit, and private non-profit sectors, with authors referring to them with labels—just to name a few—as diverse as cross-sectoral partnerships (Huxham, 1996 ; Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ), integrated networks (Provan & Milward, 1995 ), networked government (Agranoff, 2007 ), inter-organizational partnerships for value creation (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018 ), multi-stakeholder partnerships (MacDonald et al. 2019 ), and social partnerships (Yin & Jamali, 2020 ).

Whereas the reference to complex and wicked problems often implies without making explicit the need for new solutions, Hartley ( 2005 ) explicitly highlights the existence of a relation between networked governance and innovation , and the roles to be played by policy makers, public managers and citizens. Eggers and Singh ( 2009 ) further reinforce this perspective when they emphasise that, in order to encourage innovation, the following strategies are especially important: partnering (within bilateral relationships) among government agencies, and among government, private industry, universities, and non-profits, so as to test new ideas quickly and overcome bureaucratic and financial constraints; networking , so as to use the innovation assets of a diverse base of organizations and individuals; and adopting open source innovation models that encourage several people to collaborate voluntarily to create solutions. In fact, Bommert ( 2010 ) notes that collaborative innovation is especially suited to solve persistent as well as emergent problems “because it opens the innovation cycle to a variety of actors and taps into innovation resources across borders, overcomes cultural restrictions and creates broad socio-political support for public innovation.” (Bommert, 2010 , p. 29).

More recently, Torfing ( 2019 ) notes a renewed interest in the concept of collaborative innovation prompted by a growing body of literature which seeks to integrate contributions on collaborative governance (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a ; Bryson et al., 2014 , 2015 ; Cristofoli et al.,  2021a , b ; Emerson et al., 2012 ; McGuire, 2006 ) with those that rely more generally on theories of innovation in public sector settings (Eggers & Singh, 2009 ; Hartley, 2005 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ; Torfing et al., 2020 ; Trivellato et al., 2021 ). As it ascribes a crucial role to cross-sector partnerships, this literature assumes that “the participants in collaborative innovation are public and private actors that either have relevant knowledge, ideas and resources or are affected by the problem or the innovative solution and, therefore should be included in order to ensure that the problem is properly understood and the solution is feasible and solves the problem.” (Torfing, 2019 , p. 4).

Collaborative innovation is, according to Hofstad and Torfing ( 2016 ), a promising means to address the ‘wicked and unruly’ problems that increasingly characterize public policy arenas, including those related to the challenges posed by sustainable development. Examples of such problems include climate change, congested cities, protection of natural resources and social inequalities in health and education (Torfing & Ansell, 2017 ), as well as homelessness, integration of immigrants and refugees, or gang-related crime (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). In fact, all these examples pertain to areas of sustainable development in their social, environmental, and economic dimensions (Sachs, 2012 ). As such, collaborative innovation holds promise to address these issues as it “brings together a range of stakeholders from the public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, as well as users and citizens themselves, in interactive arenas that facilitate the cross-fertilization of ideas, mutual and transformative learning, and the development of joint ownership of new solutions.” (Hartley et al., 2013 ; p. 828; Trivellato et al., 2019 ).

A Framework for the Study of Multi-actor Collaboration for Sustainability

To assess how collaborative innovations may in practice contribute to the 2030 Agenda, we draw from a framework that was originally developed by Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 ) for the analysis of collaborative innovation 1 (Fig.  1 ), and we add contributions from the literature on grassroots innovations for sustainability (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ; Smith et al., 2014 ), and from the societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ). Our framework highlights the elements, and the interactions thereof, that lead to the generation of innovation outputs; we build on it by making explicit how these innovation outputs generate benefits that contribute to sustainable development.

Analytical framework for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )

Given their central role within the framework, it is helpful to point out at the outset that innovation outputs are seen as including new forms of governance, organization, or process work; product and service innovations; and policy innovations (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). In the case of sustainability-oriented bottom-up initiatives—such as low impact housing developments or community composting schemes—these innovations are further characterized by the common goal of promoting sustainable development, and by a strong involvement of NPOs in the innovation process. The results are “novel bottom–up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 , p. 585). These are innovations that improve performance based on ecological, economic, and social criteria for the definition of such performance (Boons et al., 2013 ; Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010 ) and whose characteristics may differ according to specific spatial, temporal, and cultural conditions (Boons et al., 2013 ).

Sustainability-oriented innovations produce both intrinsic and diffusion benefits that affect a wide range of stakeholders (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ), and contribute to sustainable development through the adoption of a triple bottom line approach. Intrinsic benefits within a local community may appear, for instance, in the form of reductions in car use, increase of recycling practices, or planting trees. Within that same community, other second level intrinsic benefits follow those environmental benefits as they relate to job creation, training and skills development, and personal growth. At a third level, the positive spillovers within the community can translate into an overall improvement of a sense of community, social capital and civic engagement, and better access to services and facilities (Devine-Wright, 2006 , Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ). Diffusion benefits, on the other hand, refer to transferring the value created by the innovators to the wider community through the mobilization of NPOs, so as to create a new system with values that differ from the mainstream, thereby generating transformations in production-consumption systems in ways that single individuals cannot sustain (Maniates, 2002 ). In this vein, the involvement of the NPOs in co-production processes can contribute to add value in the public sphere by increasing the direct benefit for the citizens who receive a specific public service (user value), the positive outcome for the user’s family and friends (value for wider group), social cohesion and social interaction (social value), ecological sustainability (environmental value), and democratic participation through co-planning of services with the stakeholders (political value) (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012 ).

From the organizational-level perspective of the societal orientation literature, the ‘beneficiary or recipient orientation’ that is one of its components generates advantages for the beneficiaries (or customers) of the activities and/or services that are provided through the collaboration, as their needs and the related response are to be regularly monitored and adjusted accordingly. This will likely increase beneficiary response, which can be measured in different ways, including in terms of satisfaction, attendance, participation, or improvement reported by a user’s supervisor (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ). More generally, as highlighted by Liao et al. ( 2001 ), benefits will accrue to the collaborating partners’ stakeholders whenever the former adopt the ‘stakeholder orientation’—that is, a focus on their needs—that is a key part of societal orientation.

Innovation outputs result from collaborative processes that involve partners with different identities, roles, and resources ( collaborative innovation processes ) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). Because of mutual learning, their interaction generates new ideas, with the overall process being facilitated by the development of forms of joint ownerships that contribute to overcome resistance, and to ensure coordination and flexible adjustment. Differences in goals and practices, often linked to different institutional logics (e.g. between businesses and NPOs), may be overcome when partners adopt a partnership logic based on “goal realignment, power rebalance and creative use of limited resources” (Yin & Jamali, 2020 , p. 18). A ‘collaborative orientation’ allows NPOs to—among other benefits—increase their problem solving capabilities and improve their service delivery efficiency (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), which feeds into their capabilities to produce product/service as well as process innovations.

The literature on sustainability transitions (i.e. Geels, 2005 ; Loorbach, 2007 ; Rip & Kemp, 1998 ; Rotmans et al, 2001 ; Smith et al, 2005 ) further suggests that sustainability-oriented innovation processes are often performed within protected spaces, where the communities that promote and host such initiatives are labeled ‘strategic niches’ (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ). The activities that characterize such niches include: the management of actors’ expectations; the promotion of networks of actors through the alignment of visions and interests towards a collective goal; and the stimulation of learning about the problems, needs and possibilities of a given solution (Kemp et al., 1998 ). More specifically, managing expectations relates to how niches are displayed to external audiences, and the extent to which they can deliver in terms of performance. To promote niche emergence, “these expectations should be widely shared, specific, realistic and achievable” (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 , p. 384). Networking activities, on the other hand, best support niches when they involve different stakeholders with their diverse stock of resources. Lastly, learning processes are considered most effective when they contribute to everyday knowledge and expertise but also, at a deeper level, to people’s questioning the assumptions and constraints of regime systems (Kemp et al., 1998 ).

At the same time, these collaborative innovation processes are not immune from external influences. The extent to which different actors work together and use collaboration as a vehicle for innovation may depend on a number of context-bound factors that facilitate or hamper the overall process ( drivers and barriers ). These drivers and barriers may emanate from cultural norms and values, institutional logics, inter-organizational relationships, and organizational routines (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). Contexts with particularly high institutional complexity may push partners to adopt a ‘substitution’ rather than a ‘partnership’ logic, with the ensuing lower opportunities for value creation from the collaboration (Yin & Jamali, 2020 ). Unmet social needs, in particular, are not the sole grassroot-level driver: NPOs’ commitment to alternative sustainable ways of doing things is another important driver that allows the development of innovative practices based on reordered priorities and alternative values (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ). For instance, archetypes of socio-economic systems geared towards quality of life rather than economic growth per se (Jackson, 2004 ; Robertson, 1999 ) may find expression into initiatives like locally produced food, or the rewarding of socially reproductive labor that is not adequately valued in the traditional labor market (Seyfang, 2006 ). On the other hand, significant challenges may affect the diffusion of sustainability-oriented innovations (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ), as obstacles from the social and institutional context may hinder the adaptation of the same model to other communities, the growth of the initiative, and the substitution of unsustainable models. To support diffusion, innovators may search for public funding that is often short-term and frequently linked to constraining targets imposed by funders, rather than to the needs of the recipients. A ‘donors or resource acquisition orientation’ on the part of NPOs will translate into activities aimed at retaining or attracting financial resources (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), and establishing relationships with funders that are nourishing rather than constraining. A ‘competitive orientation’ (Liao et al., 2001 ), will allow NPOs to adequately consider the impact of potential competition among partners, for instance in service delivery or in resources’ acquisition, on the collaboration and on its (innovation-related) outcomes. More generally, a ‘stakeholder orientation’ (Liao et al., 2001 ) is likely to increase an NPO’s ability to consider the various and diverse needs of its stakeholders, and more appropriately manage the extent to which these needs may transform into drivers or barriers to collaborative innovation.

These collaborative innovation processes and the drivers and barriers that act upon them are embedded within institutional arenas of interaction that supply the rules, norms, routines, cognitive scripts, and discourses which define the actions of the actors, thereby creating several patterns of interaction ( institutional arenas of interaction ) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). These institutional arenas can be shaped by proactive forms of metagovernance that regulate the network of actors through both hands-off and hands-on strategies. The term ‘metagovernance’ refers, in particular, to the channels and tools used by public authorities and other actors to govern various forms of collaborative arrangements, without excessive reliance on traditional forms of command and control (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). More specifically, it is “a specific kind of second- and third-order governance that aims to improve the functioning and capacity of relatively self-governing networks to produce governance solutions that enhance the production of public value” (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 , p. 829). The challenge for metagovernors lies in a combination of influence over the network and allowance of a certain degree of autonomy, otherwise actors may lose their enthusiasm for joint problem-solving (Cristofoli et al., 2021a ). In this respect, hands-on approaches may involve the direct management of participatory engagement, whereas hands-off strategies include institutional design and network framing. Through activities aimed at stabilizing the institutional arenas, enhancing drivers, and removing barriers, the metagovernors of innovation processes within the public sphere are often public actors who have legitimacy, special resources, and capacities (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000 ). Moreover, in the perspective of the collaborative innovation for sustainability literature, metagovernors are required to address challenges in the various phases of the innovation life-cycle, from start-up to diffusion and scaling (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ).

Methodology and Empirical Setting

To pursue our research aim, that is to explore the roles and mechanisms that collaborating organizations may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development, we conducted a qualitative multiple case study analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives across Europe in the fields of energy and food consumption. This study was part of a larger EU-funded project (CASI) which focused on the assessment and management of innovation practices through a conceptual framework that was built through a shared understanding of sustainability and innovation among stakeholders (Martini et al, 2020 ). Within this study, we collected qualitative data from four initiatives of sustainable innovation in four different EU countries (Belgium, France, Germany and Italy).

Data were collected following a three-step procedure at multiple time points between 2014 and 2016 (see Fig.  2 ). This longitudinal case approach is ideal to capture the richness and complexity of unfolding learning processes taking place within organizations (Yin, 2013 ), and to ground theory development in actual case data (Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). A total of 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted involving the contact person of each innovation initiative—in all cases a person holding a management position within the key NPO in charge of promoting the innovation project—and one or two of their collaborators depending on the case. The other interviewees were representatives of the major partner organizations involved in the innovative project (between three and four depending on the project). In order to increase information reliability through triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994 ), we collected secondary data from financial reports, institutional websites, press releases, minutes of meetings, process documentation, industry reports and trade journals.

Research process

A first round of semi-structured interviews was conducted between March and July 2014, focusing on the assessment of the practices, the outcomes and the players for each case. The interviewees were asked about key objectives, origins, success factors, barriers, drivers, tensions, funding and market potential, degree of mobilization, mutual learning processes, geographical and sectoral transferability and use of assessment methods related to each sustainable innovation initiative. In addition, we investigated the overall impact of the projects on the economic, environmental and social system. A second round of interviews was conducted between November 2015 and February 2016 through half-day meetings (one for each case) with the aim to highlight the main difficulties related to the project, and identify a set of actions to overcome them. A multi-level and multi-actor perspective was adopted in defining actions, by distinguishing between management levels and stakeholders’ perspectives to which each action referred. A final round of interviews was carried out between February and May 2016 with the aim to develop an action roadmap with the innovators, consisting of activities that they would commit to accomplish to scale up the project. Interviews typically lasted approximately 2 hours, and were transcribed verbatim. Data were coded separately by the researchers based on categories that reflect the components of the framework used to guide the analysis. The results were then compared and discussed among the authors, and combined with the results of the secondary data collection, in order to build on and move beyond the informants’ descriptions, in an attempt to interpret facts and information and integrate them in an emerging and coherent framework (Lee, 1999 ; Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). Whereas the process followed a sequential path, the results from each stage were adjusted and further developed as additional sets of data made us reconsider and revise our interpretations, with the ultimate aim of improving the fit between the tentative framework and the data (Lee, 1999 ).

European Cases of Sustainability-Oriented Innovation

The four cases were selected so as to ensure both the theoretical and literal replication of the results (Yin, 2013 ). Two out of the four initiatives (Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores) provide solutions for reducing food waste, while the other two (Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook) aim at reducing energy consumption. Table ​ Table1 1 summarises the main features of the four cases as relevant to this work. In addition to the name of the project and its primary aim, the table lists the main promoter for each initiative and the multiple roles they play within the innovative process, together with the other actors involved and their respective roles; the last column highlights the sustainable development goals that are more directly linked to these initiatives.

Main features of the four European initiatives of sustainable innovation

Based on the activities they carry out within the collaborative innovation processes, we label the relevant stakeholders as follows: financial promoters , supplying funds to support the initiatives; co-designers , engaged in the initial phases of the project; co-implementers , directly involved in the service provision process; and accelerators , carrying out direct and indirect activities that favour the diffusion of the innovation.

Solidarity Stores—ANDES

Solidarity Stores are local convenience stores where low-income people who cannot afford to buy their food in traditional supermarkets, but who are, at the same time, reluctant to benefit from charity, can buy everyday food products at 10–20% of their commercial price. The Association Nationale de Développement des Epiceries Solidaires (ANDES—National Association for the Development of Solidarity Stores) is the network created in France in 2000 to promote the diffusion of these stores. The initiative has grown beyond the country’s borders, and expanded to include cooking lessons, parent-children activities, and employment reintegration workshops. With reference to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the contribution from Solidarity Stores can be related to goals number 2, Zero Hunger (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) and 12, Responsible consumption and production (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns). ANDES’ Solidarity Stores, in fact, aim at making the consumption of fruit and vegetables accessible to people suffering from economic fragility; at the same time, they reduce food waste by promoting the consumption of non-marketable but still consumable products.

Siticibo—Banco Alimentare

Fondazione Banco Alimentare Onlus (FBA—Food Bank Foundation) collects the production surplus of the food supply chain and, through its network of 21 local food banks, distributes it to 8.898 charitable organizations that assist the needy all over Italy. In addition to its main collection program, in 2003 FBA launched a program called ‘Siticibo’ with the aim to recover and distribute fresh and cooked food products discarded by hotels, hospitals, schools and companies, which are to be consumed within 24 h and must be transported by refrigerated vans. As in the case of the Solidarity Stores, the goals number 2, Zero Hunger and 12, Responsible consumption and production, are those that can be fulfilled through initiatives such as Siticibo. These aims are accomplished, respectively, through the daily re-distribution of cooked food to soup kitchens and nonprofit organization engaged in poverty alleviation, and through the recovery of non-marketable but consumable fresh food.

EnergyBook—Ilanga

EnergyBook is a co-operative investment system in which parents and people from the neighbourhood invest in making school buildings more energy-efficient. Citizens, local administrations, owners of school buildings or other buildings work with coaches supplied by Ilanga and Bond Beter Leefmilieu (Union for a Better Environment), two think-tanks located in Belgium where people with expertise in energy and finance formulate solutions aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. With reference to the 2030 SDGs, the contribution from EnergyBook can be linked to goal number 7, Affordable and clean energy (ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all).

Fifty/Fifty—UfU

Fifty/Fifty is an initiative promoted by the German Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen (UfU Independent Institute for Environmental Issues), a private research and innovation support organization, and implemented by over 3,500 schools in Germany. Participating schools receive 50% of the energy costs saved through conscious usage, to be used at their discretion; the other 50% remain with the school district. As in the case of EnergyBook, the SDG number 7, Affordable and clean energy, is directly pursued by Fifty/Fifty partners.

European Cases of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainable Development

Based on the framework presented in section two, this section first describes the innovation outputs and their related benefits in the four cases, which are then followed by the roles and the activities of the metagovernors, and subsequently by the collaborative innovation processes and their related drivers and barriers. Table ​ Table2 2 summarises the main components of the framework, describes the focus of the analysis in our cases for each of these components, and outlines the main results.

Operationalization of Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability

The Outputs of Collaborative Innovations

The outputs of the collaborative processes under study take the form of service, process, and organizational innovations, as well as innovative governance models, often with multiple types of innovation outputs within the same case.

The innovation introduced by Siticibo, for instance, is twofold. The first concerns the creation of an innovative service that was not available beforehand. The food banks belonging to the FBA network, in fact, previously provided non-profit organizations only with packaged food retrieved from large retailers or from the food industry. This newly introduced service innovation adds the distribution of discarded cooked food, collected from the canteens of schools, companies, and other organizations, to kitchens and charitable entities. Before the introduction of this service, unconsumed cooked food was bound to be thrown away because of healthcare safety reasons, with a consequent significant amount of waste. A solution, therefore, had to be found to address these safety concerns, which prompted Siticibo to engage with the challenge and concurrently introduce a process innovation: “ with the support of Milan’s Polytechnic, we developed and adopted a new procedure to treat the food, so that we can preserve it and transport it in the appropriate way, and then it can be processed in the kitchens of the receiving charitable organizations”.

In the case of the Solidarity Stores, the innovation concerns the introduction of a new service addressing the primary needs of the less well-off directly through its stores, without the intermediation of charities, as in the case of traditional food banks. This service caters to the needs of individuals who may not resort to food banks because of the associated stigma, or who are experiencing financial difficulties without being extremely impoverished. Being able to purchase food, instead of receiving it as a donation, allows these consumers to feel they are participating in a market transaction, and therefore retain their dignity. As noted by one interviewee: “we work with community partners to minimize the barriers that may prevent individuals from seeking these kinds of services”. At the same time, the retailing activity is a means to channel more extensive solidarity actions: customers are encouraged to share their concerns and are provided with advice on how to seek help and improve their self-esteem. In order to increase these individuals’ social inclusion, and to develop their skills and competences, further collateral activities are promoted within the stores, such as cooking lessons, and parents-children activities.

EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty display organizational and governance innovations. Both cases highlight an innovative and sustainable way to render schools self-sufficient in energy production (organizational innovation), by involving local communities simultaneously as owners and consumers (governance innovation), thereby promoting new means of citizens’ engagement. In the case of Fifty/Fifty: “schools receive 50% of the energy costs that they saved because of conscious usage of their energy and water, and they can use them at their discretion, while the other 50% remains available to the school district”. School managers together with users—pupils, teachers, and administrative staff—are directly involved in innovation implementation, which increases their commitment and sense of ownership while also educating them in the direction of a more sustainable lifestyle. This process of increased awareness and learning further extends to the pupils’ families, which facilitates its diffusion within the local community. In the case of EnergyBook there is also a dimension of service and process innovation: citizens can contact Ilanga to ask for guidance and support in their plan to make (school) buildings more energy-efficient; Ilanga coordinates the process, and helps with communication and stakeholder gathering (citizens, local administrations, owners, electricity transmission system operators etc.). Within EnergyBook, citizens are brought together to think about how they can invest in making their neighborhoods more sustainable, which not only produces innovations in local governance forms, but also increases social cohesion.

Compared to other collaborative innovations promoted by public administrations, these four initiatives do not touch public services directly; rather they affect a wider concept of public sphere. In the cases of both Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores, in particular, these initiatives contribute to poverty reduction, a major responsibility of public administrations, through food provision, which is rarely managed or financed by public institutions. At the same time, the efficient and sustainable energy consumption promoted by Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook is not a public service per se, however it affects positively the long-term collective interest that is related to environmental protection.

Benefits of Collaborative Sustainability-Oriented Innovations

The benefits generated by collaborative sustainability-oriented innovations are both intrinsic and extrinsic (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ), and affect different dimensions of the value being created (Boivard and Loeffler, 2012). At a first level, the innovations generate benefits for the users and the wider groups who are related to them. In the case of EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, users include students, their families and the host communities, whereas for Siticibo the primary users are the recipients of fresh and cooked food, and for the Solidarity Stores, the shops’ clients. More specifically, the value for users of Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook is directly related to its form in terms of environmental sustainability. As one EnergyBook interviewee explains, the benefits are also extrinsic: “citizens, together with a coach from EnergyBook, the local administration, and the owners of the school buildings are engaged in the co-creation of a more sustainable environment” . The beneficiary and stakeholder orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) here is visible in the effort to involve all the relevant stakeholder, so that their perspective and interests are taken into consideration, thereby increasing the likelihood of the project’s success. From the perspective of Ilanga, EnergyBook’s promoter, this success contributes to the achievement of their mission and effective use of the resources they invest in the collaboration. Through this initiative, stakeholders can “reduce the schools’ energy bills, and invest in school buildings to enhance energy savings, allow smart sharing of energy, and promote sustainable energy consumption”, furthermore, with Fifty/Fifty, they can “save water and energy in the public education sector, save money for schools, and reduce CO2 emissions”.

In the case of both Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores, the positive outcome on environmental sustainability is rather an indirect implication of their business model. A Siticibo interviewee explains that the positive contribution to the environment is in a way a side effect “in addition to the direct effect as a support to charities and families”, but still it is of great importance, since “discarded food in landfills would immediately begin to produce methane gas, a greenhouse gas with over 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of carbon dioxide”.

Another component of the benefits provided by these initiatives concerns the social dimension, for instance in the form of social inclusion as explained in the case of the Solidarity Stores: “Solidarity Stores (…) are effective in preserving dignity, reducing dependence on charity and relieving beneficiaries from the feeling of being indebted. Stores are places where people are listened to and helped to rebuild their relationships with society, appreciate their own value and competences and reinforce their self-esteem. Several activities are organized there, such as cooking lessons, parent-children activities, and employment reintegration workshops”. Such social value tends to be produced through ad hoc initiatives that are promoted in addition to the main innovation. This is the case, for instance, with the Solidarity Stores’ professional integration workshops, which provide practical skills while also enhancing the attendees’ motivation to search for job opportunities . On the other hand, the extrinsic benefits in terms of political value occur through NPOs’ involvement in the initiatives. In the case of the innovative governance models proposed by UfU and Ilanga, value creation in the political sphere is a consequence of the communities’ direct involvement in the development of a sustainable model of energy consumption. As an EnergyBook interviewee explains: “The cultural challenge in our project does not refer exclusively to environmental sustainability, but concerns also the wider problem of citizens’ direct engagement in public issues”.

Metagovernance: Actors and Mechanisms

The metagovernance of the initiatives under study is performed by four non-profit organizations: Fondazione Banco Alimentare (FBA) for Siticibo, the Nationale de Développement des Epiceries Solidaires (ANDES) for the Solidarity Stores, Ilanga Belgium for EnergyBook, and the Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen (UfU) for Fifty/Fifty. These institutions engage in both hands-on and hands-off strategies (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ) along the multiple phases of the innovation process (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ).

Hands-on strategies are performed with different intensity across the four cases, ranging from the management of collaborative processes to active involvement in the implementation of the initiative. At the managerial level, FBA, ANDES, Ilanga, and UfU play the role of the innovation orchestrator, by integrating the contributions of various stakeholders in a coherent whole, in a way that enables collaboration toward a common goal. Moreover, both FBA and ANDES are involved in the innovation’s implementation: in the case of Siticibo and of the Solidarity Stores respectively, they play the role of both inventor and co-implementer, together with the companies that provide food and, in the case of Siticibo, non-profit organizations engaged in distribution. As noted by a Solidarity Stores’ interviewee: “ANDES supplies the know-how about how to interact with low income people and families who are affected by poverty, and also sets the conditions for accessing social stores based on socioeconomic and needs-based criteria. All the parties then participate in the financing, development and opening of the new stores, including the restructuring of buildings and the provision of shop equipment”.

These organizations also perform hands-off strategies by influencing the creation of favorable institutional arenas of interactions at two different levels. At a first level, they try to reduce potential institutional barriers through open dialog with national and European actors. As explained by FBA’s President: “The role of both EU and local governments is essential for the development of policies aimed at reducing food waste, and we perceive ourselves [FBA] as a privileged informer in the process of policy-making: the Good Samaritan Law is the best example of this process”. At a second level, they promote the development of a culture of social and environmental sustainability within the communities in which the collaborative sustainable innovations are implemented, with specific attention for the wellbeing of future generations. In the case of EnergyBook, the interviewee explained how they address the challenges of promoting a sustainability culture: “by bringing citizens together, and think about how they can invest in making their neighborhoods more sustainable, and by developing an energy cooperative in which the citizens themselves take the initiative”. In particular, the cultural transformation occurs by involving children within schools, through communication campaign programs, so as to encourage responsible energy consumption. Similar initiatives are promoted in the case of Fifty/Fifty: “we aim to promote a culture of sustainable behavior by educating students to reduce their energy and water consumption, and to act as multipliers by spreading such knowledge within their families”.

The Institutional Arenas of Interaction: Processes and Role of the Metagovernors

The case studies highlight how the processes of network promotion, expectations’ management, and learning stimulation that characterize successful strategic niches (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ) are primarily performed by the networks’ metagovernors.

As far as networking activities are concerned, for instance, the collaborative processes that generate sustainable innovations are prompted by the metagovernors’ attempt to involve different stakeholders at different levels, often with a progressive enlargement of the partnership, with the related increase in resources’ diversity that is considered by the literature as conducive to fruitful niche emergence. In our cases, these resources are both material (e.g. food and financial resources) and immaterial (including specialized skills and competences). In the case of the Solidarity Stores, at the outset the stores originated mainly from networks of public and non-profit organizations aimed to establish a system of free food distribution, essentially for homeless or very poor people. More recently, ANDES has worked to promote the growth of the initiative so as to include large food retailers, who played a crucial role in developing the network and allowing a rapid increase in the number and efficiency of the Solidarity Stores in France. At the micro-level, collaboration occurs among individuals, and the success of these partnerships is mainly due to an effective combination of personnel from different organizations and with various backgrounds. In the case of the Solidarity Stores, the teams consist of employees of large retailers, NPOs and public authorities who work together to launch the stores by bringing in their respective skills. Large retailers bring the specific management, logistic and sale skills that are required to meet quality standards, and provide advance financial support for warehouse and handling costs. This behavior, both at the individual and organizational level, is a reflection of the collaborative orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ) that is adopted by the metagoverning NPO as well as the other partners. The pooling of material and intangible resources allows the relevant service to be delivered in the first place, but also to increase its efficiency and quality (for instance through the involvement of large retailers in the case of the Solidarity Stores), and to build on partners’ specialized skills to foster innovation (as in the case of Siticibo’s solution to transport cooked food safely).

As for the management of expectations that is meant to be conducive to successful niche emergence, FBA begins by referring to surplus food as a ‘resource’ rather than ‘waste’. This communication effort aims at convincing food suppliers that the partnership with FBA transforms waste in resources for the recipients; at the same time, it provides a relief for the disposal of unwanted food. These savings may not be dramatic but are easily computed and therefore recognizable by partner organizations. Emphasis on surplus food as a resource instead of waste also serves the objective of aligning partners’ visions and interests that, according to the niche emergence perspective is crucial for network promotion. The network-level aim of maximizing the gains to be obtained from discarded food is aligned with the organizational-level aims of producing societal benefits while also reducing corporate costs. Similarly, in the case of EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, the innovation allows to reach visible and identifiable savings that are then shared by the school and the funders. Corporate costs’ reductions and energy savings are real and measurable, which makes partners’ expectations in relation to them both realistic and achievable, thereby facilitating the virtuous dynamics that characterize strategic niches. Collaboration does not necessarily concern only service provision processes: in some circumstances it involves a higher level, i.e. that of policy definition, as in the case of Siticibo. As the President of FBA explains, “the idea for Siticibo was born in 2001, inspired by a mother trying to avoid wasting excess food in schools, and was lunched in application of the Italian Law 155/2003 [the so called ‘Good Samaritan Law’]. FBA was one of the promoter of this law, which, for the first time in Europe, stated that non-profit organizations providing free distribution to food-deprived people are to be considered equal to end-consumers for the purpose of preserving, storing, and using foodstuff”. Here again the alignment of interests and objectives, together with a clear indication of the benefits that would accrue to actors at all levels, facilitated acceptance and relatively swift implementation of the innovation also at the regulatory level.

Finally, as for the kind of learning that supports the growth of niches, we see evidence of first-order learning, that is development of new knowledge, skills, and expertise (Kemp et al., 1998 ): this is, for instance, the case of Siticibo with the new food preservation system that allows cooked food to be transported without deteriorating. At the same time, we also see deeper learning processes with potential systemic effects (Kemp et al., 1998 ), as they promote greater awareness of the environmental impact of various activities. In the cases of both EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, for instance, participating schools commit to involve their students: Ilanga and UfU promote, in particular, the development of ad hoc training and educational modules targeted to students to increase their awareness about energy consumption and sustainability-oriented behaviors. With specific reference to Fifty/Fifty, an UfU operator suggests how “ it is innovative because it doesn’t only require changes in technology, but also in the educational curricula ”. And he adds: “ The direct involvement of students in the innovation process and the supply of lessons, project days, study groups and study trips focusing on climate and energy topics allow them to learn about energy saving practices and to transfer new knowledge to their families ”. Specific knowledge at the individual level coupled with wider receptiveness at the societal level, therefore, increase the strength of the learning processes and the likelihood that they will contribute to meaningful innovations.

The Institutional Arenas of Interaction: Drivers and Barriers Enacted by Local Stakeholders

With reference to the drivers of these initiatives, one of EnergyBook’s interviewees identified, first of all, a growing awareness of sustainability problems among the local communities. In particular, he suggests that “in times of economic crisis, the government alone cannot provide the money and know-how that are necessary to invest in climate mitigation solutions [and] citizens are invited to proactively initiate projects”, and that with EnergyBook “ people and citizens are put at the centre ”. The presence of financial rewards for different stakeholders is another key driver. In the case of Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook, one of the reasons for their diffusion resides in the financial interest by the community investing in the projects. The involvement of the community as financers is a key factor used by Ilanga to promote EnergyBook among schools. This resource acquisition orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ) is not directed towards donors in a strict sense, but towards citizens who may be willing to invest their excess resources in a responsible way, while also obtaining a financial return. Interviewees confirm, in fact, that “the Belgian people traditionally save a lot of money; but saving money is not economically profitable at the moment, and investing in projects that assure a return on investment is more attractive”. As a consequence, Ilanga purposefully explains to citizens that the project is cost-effective, allowing “a profit of 3 to 6% over a period of 10 to 15 years”. In the cases of both the Solidarity Stores and Siticibo, the companies that provide food surplus see their operating costs diminish due to lower management costs of inventory and waste, and often see a positive indirect impact on their revenues through an overall improvement in their reputation. According to a Solidarity Stores’ interviewee: “[our project] enhances our corporate brand image and reduces the costs of managing waste”. In the case of Siticibo, the President of FBA stressed that “the recovery of surplus food underlines the economic value of food, and donors can reduce storage and disposal fees while also putting products to good use instead of wasting them, thereby contributing to the common good of society”. The donor/resource acquisition orientation on the part of Siticibo can be seen, first, in their effort to raise companies’ awareness that their waste can be repurposed for other, socially oriented, uses; and secondly, in their linking such socially responsible behavior to cost savings for those same companies. The success of this innovation, then, is closely linked to the fact that it provides companies with the opportunity to reduce costs related to waste disposal; moreover, “the recognition of food banks’ social value has led to a strong partnership with private sector organizations, who can design their policies of corporate social responsibility as an extension of their core business”. A last important driver of collaborative innovations for sustainability may be a supportive public sector. In the case of Fifty/Fifty, Germany’s Environmental Department covers the costs that schools face during the process through the National Climate Protection Initiative for the first three years. After that period, each school district becomes responsible for keeping the project alive and ensuring its effectiveness and economic sustainability. In addition to non-economic incentives such as the positive environmental impact and the spillovers from the involvement of students, the economic incentive seems to be rather clear to public managers, who understand the opportunity to save money by embracing a strategy aimed to reduce energy and water consumption. In addition, “the fact that the initial investments for schools are covered by the national government represents another incentive for public managers as it reduces the economic risk of the initiative”.

Whereas a supportive public actor was a key driver in the case of Fifty/Fifty, Siticibo’s interviewees noted that public administrations and governmental regulations sometimes hinder the diffusion of the initiative, thereby acting as a barrier to collaborative innovation. According to a Siticibo interviewee: “sometimes the external environment does not seem to boost food surplus donation, as food donors are wary of jeopardizing their brand image. They are not willing to take on the liability risk in relation to the donated food, and there are no fiscal incentives that promote food donation”. Moreover, “regulations for the non-profit sector in Italy are often very complicated or difficult to apply”. In addition to the regulatory barriers, Siticibo’s operators identify other barriers related to the structure of the Italian food industry: “the Italian economy features a very fragmented retail industry. A few companies are leaders in every region, and then there are many small organizations operating at the local level with whom it is difficult to get in touch and begin to collaborate at the policy level. The same fragmentation is found among trade associations, which are strongly divided and are not willing to engage in mutual cooperation. The same is also true for the restaurant industry, where every organization thinks for themselves. In general, this fragmentation makes it difficult to create a network and increase the power to influence policies, at the national as well as at the European level”. These comments once again show a stakeholder orientation (Liao et al., 2001 ) on the part of Siticibo, highlighting the fact that such orientation can also help build a better understanding of the interests that potentially constrain the collaboration. Such improved understanding may, in turn, support the metagovernor—and/or one or more partners—in their search for an effective way to work around these constraints.

We have argued that NPOs may play an important role in supporting sustainable development, particularly when they are involved in various ways in the promotion of collaborative innovations. As they refer to the metagovernance of collaborative innovation processes, Sørensen and Torfing ( 2017 , p. 830) acknowledge that “(i)t is not the prerogative of the public authorities to step into the role of metagovernor. Private actors, such as community leaders, interest organizations, and business leaders, might seek to take on this position and their success in doing so depends, among other things, on whether they possess the centrality, resources, and ability to do so”. By integrating the meso- and the micro-levels of analysis, we propose that, in the case of collaborative innovations for sustainability, such role may indeed be fruitfully played by NPOs.

The results of the analysis of the four case studies are here discussed first in relation to the contribution of collaborative innovations to SDGs (the focus of our first research question) and, second, by explaining the roles that NPOs engaged in the metagovernance of these collaborations may play in this process (which addresses our second research question). In the last part of this discussion section, we draw on our results to propose a conceptual model for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability that suggests the possibility of a virtuous cycle between metagovernance, collaborative innovation processes, and value creation.

Value Creation Through Collaborative Sustainability-Oriented Innovation

As far as the contribution of collaborative innovation to the SDGs is concerned, our analysis adds to the literature on sustainable transitions (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Smith et al., 2014 ) through a better understanding of how these sustainability-oriented innovations generate value, and which characteristics thereof are being created. In this vein, our results suggest that although each case focuses on one or two of the SDGs—among Zero Hunger, Responsible consumption and production, and Affordable and clean energy—their positive externalities are wider, affecting the environmental, the social and the economic dimensions of sustainable development. For instance, a positive outcome of these innovations appears to begin early in the innovative process, before the beneficial effects of services provision for users start to emerge: the NPO often acts as early-stage promoter of the innovation, and this contributes to the creation of social capital, trust, and meaningful relations long before the initiatives are implemented or the services are actually supplied. Therefore, the innovation’s benefits are multiple and possibly reinforce each other, thereby facilitating its growth across time and space. In the case of both EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, for instance, investing—through training—in a culture that promotes sustainability among the youth supports the creation of a sustainability culture across generations. Here, we see the immediate environmental as well as financial benefits from lower energy consumption that are enjoyed by the relevant community in the short/medium term. These immediate gains will also translate in wider and longer-term benefits, as families adopt more responsible behaviours also in other areas of their lives, and transfer this sustainability-oriented culture to their offsprings. In the case of Siticibo, the collection of discarded food that would otherwise go into incinerators has a positive impact on the environment, while also supporting the activities of NPOs that address social needs. At the same time, the collection allows companies to optimize inventory management, with positive economic implications, and to implement socially responsible practices that contribute to improved reputation and, potentially, to increasing purpose-driven behavior at the organizational level.

These initiatives, therefore, extend their scope across the environmental, social, and economic dimensions, with wider effects that reach beyond those cases where the impact tends to be limited to a single dimension. Particularly significant is the role of the financial benefits of collaborative innovation for sustainability, which may become an important driver of their diffusion and scaling-up. In the case of Fifty/Fifty, for instance, the financial benefits associated with savings from lower water and energy consumption and the related possibility to invest in other spheres are a strong incentive for scaling-up. On the other hand, even if the financial dimension may be a powerful driver, a challenge lies in showing to the relevant community the opportunity for savings and financial returns. Here the metagovernors can play a key role: rather than leveraging the intrinsic and ethical motivations of the people involved, as it happens with traditional non-profit organizations, they can build on the logic of the social enterprise, featuring a balance among the environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

Lastly, these initiatives of collaborative innovation for sustainability contribute in a fundamental way to the implementation of SDG n. 17, Partnerships for the goals, as it refers especially to the establishment of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals’ ( https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17 ).

Non-profit Organizations as Metagovernors of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainability

As for the contribution of NPOs as metagovernors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ) of multi-stakeholder and social partnerships (MacDonald et al. 2019 , Yin & Jamali, 2020 ), our analysis adds to the interdisciplinary literature on collaboration a specific focus on the role of the actors involved. In this vein, we integrate Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s collaborative innovation framework by focusing specifically on the NPO as a metagovernor, as opposed to the prevailing literature’s focus on public actors. Moreover, we highlight how the ‘metagovernance’ umbrella term actually includes a set of possible specific roles that the NPO may also play concurrently: the analysis leads us to identify five such roles (see Table ​ Table3 3 ).

Metagovernance of collaborative innovation processes for sustainability

The metagovernor can play the role of a Cultural Spreader by promoting a culture of environmental and social sustainability among various stakeholders across time and space, thereby contributing to the generation of social and environmental value along the innovation process. For instance, UfU performs this role with the environmental sustainability seminars carried out at the schools within the Fifty/Fifty project. This actor can also play the role of the Enabler of the innovation co-design process, by involving the members of the local communities. These communities contribute to identify local needs and challenges, as well as the solutions that can be implemented to address them, thereby experimenting with forms of direct democracy. In the case of EnergyBook, for example, Ilanga’s coaches perform an enabling role as they build relations among citizens, the local administration, and the owners of the school buildings, so as to identify the innovative solution that is most suitable for that specific context. Similarly, the role of the Relational Broker also involves the promotion of networking activities among different actors, but with a specific focus on the implementation of the innovation. Metagovernors play this role when they join together resources from different actors, so as to allow the actual implementation of the innovative project. In the case of the Solidarity Stores, ANDES is engaged in the identification of new suppliers, the rearrangement of the buildings where the stores are located, and in the promotion of the initiative within the local community. At a different level, a metagovernor may become a relational broker for innovation diffusion, by promoting increasing awareness of the initiative across different communities, thereby extending value creation across space. Ilanga plays this role through the promotion of EnergyBook across Belgium. In other circumstances, the metagovernor plays the role of the Service Provider who’s directly involved in the provision of the innovative service. In the case of Siticibo, FBA provides the core service of fresh food transfer through its logistic infrastructure. In this role, the metagovernors create a direct benefit for users and, at the same time, they touch the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development by providing services (the innovation outputs) contributing to the mitigation of the environmental impact of economic activities, and, at the same time, by generating a financial pay-off for several actors. Finally, as they get involved in the development and diffusion of the innovation, the metagovernors may contribute to the formulation of public policies, thereby assuming the role of the Influencer . This happened for instance in the case of Siticibo, where FBA was instrumental in the promotion of the Good Samaritan Law.

A Conceptual Model of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainability

Drawing on Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model, integrated with contributions from with literatures on grassroots sustainable innovation and on societal orientation, and in the light of the results of our analysis, we propose a conceptual model to study collaborative innovations for sustainability that highlights the presence of a potential virtuous circle (see Fig.  3 ).

A conceptual model of collaborative innovation for sustainability

As in Sørensen and Torfing’s ( 2011 ) model, metagovernance affects both institutional arenas of interaction and collaborative innovation processes—with the latter being, in turn, influenced by drivers and barriers—which ultimately lead to innovation outputs. We propose an integration to this model that, first, distinguishes among five types of metagoverning roles, which in our cases appear to influence certain spheres of value creation more than others (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Second, we propose to make explicit the value being created not only as a result of innovation outputs, but also as a result of the collaborative processes. This is most visible in the fact that the collaboration contributes to create trust and social capital early on, before the actual services (the innovation outputs) are supplied: in the EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty cases we see an effort to create a culture of sustainability among the youth, and relatedly across generations. The benefits are multiple—as they inform the social, environmental, and financial dimensions—and reinforce each other as, for instance, increased ties and trust within the community and the visible financial rewards from energy-saving activities will likely encourage responsible behaviors also in the future. The types of value being created can also be linked directly to the dimensions of sustainable development that they contribute to support, thereby suggesting that the contribution of these initiatives to sustainable development goes well beyond the specific SDG they most directly contribute to (that is, number 2. Zero Hunger, number 12. Responsible consumption and production, and number 7. Affordable and clean energy). Our proposed framework therefore wishes to highlight that collaborative innovation processes may contribute to the various dimensions of sustainable development both directly (e.g. by fostering a culture of sustainable development among the youth) and indirectly (through the production of innovation outputs, such as a service that provides NPOs with surplus cooked food produced by companies’ canteens), and that this contribution is likely to be shaped by the role(s) taken by the metagovernor.

In addition to this set of influences, we wish to point out the feedback effects that from the value being created revert to the metagovernors and to the collaborations respectively. In the case of the metagovernors, seeing the value being created may prompt them to further promote and coordinate sustainability-oriented innovations, and/or to scale up existing ones, thereby establishing new collaborations in the process. Such visible value may take the form, for instance, of target users’ higher social inclusion through improved job market participation, or energy/water savings within the local community.

As for the effect on collaborations, the value being created may influence both their drivers and barriers. As for the drivers, different components of the value being created may contribute to increase the awareness of sustainability problems among individuals and communities: these components include, for instance, measurable improvements in pollution indicators or CO2 emissions, or reductions in food waste. More pragmatically, the financial value resulting from the collaboration may further push existing partners to collaborate, as well as attract other stakeholders. The generation of economic value may also help reduce certain barriers, as in the case of the fragmented Italian food industry in the case of Siticibo: the evidence of financial rewards may work as an incentive for companies and trade associations to set aside (part of) their conflicting interests and work together towards a common objective. Similarly, evidence of the social, environmental, and economic value being created may push public administrators to amend those regulations that act as barriers, while also establishing programs and setting aside financial resources for the promotion of sustainability-oriented partnerships.

The 2030 Agenda explicitly recognizes the role to be played by cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. However, the forms, functionings and impacts of such partnerships can be extremely varied. As noted by Yin and Jamali ( 2020 , p. 4) in relation to social partnerships, “little has been known as to how managing the processes across the partnership dimensions may lead to value creation”.

The New Public Governance approach, and the collaborative innovation literature in particular, have shown how the wicked problems of sustainable development may be addressed through new solutions that build on partners’ diverse competences and resources (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 , 2017 ; Van Huijstee et al., 2007 ), thereby shedding light on several of the aforementioned issues. On the other hand, the collaborative innovation literature mostly neglects the specific role played by non-profits within collaborations, thereby losing an opportunity to better understand possible NPO-related elements to be leveraged for greater efficacy, both from a policy perspective and from the viewpoint of the individual collaborating organizations.

The aim of our study, then, was to understand first how collaborative innovation for sustainability may actually contribute to the implementation of the Agenda 2030, and secondly which role do NPOs play within cross-sector partnerships engaged in collaborative innovation processes. To reach this objective, we conducted a multiple case study analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives implemented across Europe in the fields of energy and food consumption.

Our results reach beyond confirming that NPOs may act as metagovernors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ), by showing how they can actually play the central part that is often occupied by public organizations, and by suggesting a typology of the roles played by NPOs that in various ways contribute to generate innovation for sustainability. This enhanced model adds to existing frameworks by explaining how value in terms of sustainability is being created, by pointing out three major dynamics. First, collaborative innovation processes contribute to value creation both directly (e.g. by creating trust), and indirectly through the innovation outputs (e.g. a new service) that in turn generate value for users and other stakeholders. Secondly, innovation benefits for the purpose of sustainability are multiple—as they inform the social, environmental, and financial dimensions—and reinforce each other (e.g. financial and reputational rewards will encourage responsible corporate behavior). Thirdly, the value being created produces feedback effects on the metagovernors (who may be prompted to further promote sustainability-oriented innovations or scale up existing ones), and on the barriers and drivers to collaborative innovation processes (e.g. public administrators may be pushed to amend regulations that act as barriers). This model, therefore, also extends the literature on grassroots innovations for sustainability (van Lunenburg et al., 2020 ) as it suggests that such innovations may benefit greatly from their being promoted and implemented by partnerships between NPOs and other stakeholders. Starting from a specific aim of sustainable development—i.e. diffusion of clean energy or responsible consumption practices—grassroots innovations based on collaboration generate positive externalities at the environmental, social and economic levels, reaching far beyond their original intent. Lastly, our work adds to the societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) as it highlights that all of this concept’s outward-oriented components—in addition to the NPO’s ‘collaborative orientation’—are likely to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Joining the meso- and the micro-levels of analysis brings the benefit of integrating two different perspectives when pursuing a sustainability oriented initiative: the macro-level perspective of policy design and implementation, and the micro-level perspective of the participating organizations’ behaviour and activities. An improved understanding of the relevant roles and dynamics, therefore, allows both better institutional support and more effective collaborative behaviour, thereby improving the outlook for the implementation of Agenda 2030.

The results of this work may be of interest both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. From a theoretical perspective, this work contributes to the extant literature by developing a conceptual framework that sees collaborative innovation initiatives as drivers for the fulfilment of sustainable development, with a fundamental role to be played by NPOs not only in their design and implementation, but also in the metagovernance of the institutional arenas of collaborative interaction. From a practitioner’s viewpoint, this work provides managers of NPOs with a better understanding of the roles they may play within the innovation process. For instance, the ability to generate financial value—and to draw the attention of the relevant stakeholders to it—may strengthen the innovative process and its diffusion and scaling-up, with positive implications for value creation at different levels. In fact, part of the follow-up to our research work was the construction of a roadmap, together with the management of the organization acting as promoter/metagovernor, aimed at scaling up the innovation projects and helping them shape the mainstream approach to—in our cases—energy saving and surplus food management programs.

Our work also highlights that the four countries’ socio-economic, regulatory and economic contexts affect the innovation processes, as in the case of Siticibo facing the intricate Italian regulatory framework for NPOs, or EnergyBook benefiting from Belgians’ propensity to invest their savings. Awareness of these influences—whose examination goes beyond the scope of this paper—can help the managers of the metagovernor and of other collaborating organizations to either take advantage of or work around them.

From a policy-making perspective, the results show the opportunity for public administrations to allow NPOs to innovate trough a bottom-up approach, thereby eventually supporting sustainable development processes, and to play an active role by enabling such innovation processes while also eliminating any institutional barriers. In addition—and building on the basic idea proposed by Torfing and Triantafillou ( 2016 ) that ‘the way we shape the institutional forms of governance in the public sector affects its capacity for innovation’ (p. 3) —our results suggest that if NPOs are allowed to be metagovernors, and supported in such role, the overall system’s capacity for innovation may be enhanced. By transforming public governance in the right ways, public innovation may be boosted for the benefit of different and diverse actors.

The main limitations of this work are linked to its case study-based nature: the cases were selected through theoretical sampling, so as to explore certain elements and dynamics within a constrained comparative approach. Further research could first test the external validity of the mechanisms and dynamics highlighted by our proposed framework, by extending the analysis to other sectors, contexts, and larger samples; secondly, it could explore the extent to which such mechanisms may in fact reinforce each other and encourage a virtuous circle as our analysis suggests. Nevertheless, given the SDGs’ voluntary nature and the related weak capacity to enforce the collaborations that can foster them, our study shows that NPOs may play a crucial role not only by directly addressing local communities’ needs but also as promoters and metagovernors of collaborations among relevant stakeholders. Whereas collaboration and collaborative innovation are not without risks (Torfing & Triantafillou, 2016 ), they also have the potential to trigger a process of value creation that is multidimensional, and which, therefore, may contribute to sustainable development in ways that go beyond the pursuit of individual Goals. The value being created in its different forms, in turn, may act as providing incentives and reducing organizational and institutional barriers to both metagovernance and collaboration, thereby contributing to address the challenges faced by the implementation of the Agenda 2030. As of end-2021, these challenges are exacerbated by the impact of the global pandemic caused by Covid-19: at a time when publicly provided services are under considerable stress, both within and outside the healthcare sector, NPOs are seeing an increased demand for both their service delivery and innovation capabilities (Shi et al., 2020 ). Collaborative innovation through multi-stakeholder partnerships may be one way, among others, to answer this call.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The research leading to these results received funding from the European Commission, FP7 Science in Society, Grant/Award Number: 612113.

Declarations

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

1 Figure  1 is a simplification of Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model, specifically as it does not include the initial conditions that influence the institutional arenas of interaction, nor the evaluation of innovation outputs.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Laura Mariani, Email: [email protected] .

Benedetta Trivellato, Email: [email protected] .

Mattia Martini, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabetta Marafioti, Email: [email protected] .

• Abzug R, Webb NJ. Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 1999; 28 (4):416–431. doi: 10.1177/0899764099284003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agranoff R. Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Torfing J, editors. Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Torfing J, editors. Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design. Routledge; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bommert B. Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review. 2010; 11 (1):15–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boons F, Montalvo C, Quist J, Wagner M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013; 45 :1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bovaird T, Loeffler E. From engagement to co-production: The Contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2012; 23 (4):1119–1138. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Bloomberg L. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. 2014; 74 (4):445–456. doi: 10.1111/puar.12238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaboration—needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 2015; 75 (5):647–663. doi: 10.1111/puar.12432. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo-Hermosilla J, del Río P, Könnölä T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010; 18 (10):1073–1083. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cristofoli D, Douglas S, Torfing J, Trivellato B. Having it all: Is it possible for collaborative governance to be both legitimate and accountable? Public Management Review. 2022; 24 (5):695–719. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1960736. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cristofoli D, Trivellato B, Sancino A, Maccio L, Markovic J. Public network leadership and the ties that lead. Journal of Management and Governance. 2021; 25 :251–274. doi: 10.1007/s10997-020-09505-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosby BC, Bryson JM. Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21 (2):211–230. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine-Wright P, Devine-Wright H. Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK. International Journal of Global Energy Issues. 2006; 25 (3–4):243–256. doi: 10.1504/IJGEI.2006.008994. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque-Zuluaga LC, Schneider U. Market orientation and organizational performance in the nonprofit context: Exploring both concepts and the relationship between them. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. 2008; 19 (2):25–47. doi: 10.1300/J054v19n02_02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eggers WD, Singh S. The public innovators playbook. Harvard Kennedy School of Government; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review. 1989; 14 (4):532–550. doi: 10.2307/258557. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkington J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management. 1998; 8 (1):37–51. doi: 10.1002/tqem.3310080106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012; 22 (1):1–29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fassin Y, Deprez J, Van den Abeele A, Heene A. Complementarities between stakeholder management and participative management: Evidence from the youth care sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2017; 46 (3):586–606. doi: 10.1177/0899764016661247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW. Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and sociotechnical analysis. Edward Elgar; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Weidenfield and Nicolson; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammer J, Pivo G. The triple bottom line and sustainable economic development theory and practice. Economic Development Quarterly. 2017; 31 (1):25–36. doi: 10.1177/0891242416674808. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present. Public Money & Management. 2005; 25 (1):27–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Sørensen E, Torfing J. Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. 2013; 73 :821–830. doi: 10.1111/puar.12136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstad H, Torfing J. Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration. 2016; 19 (4):49–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh J, Curtis KP, Smith AW. Implications of stakeholder concept and market orientation in the US nonprofit arts context. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. 2008; 5 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s12208-008-0001-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxham C. Creating collaborative advantage. Sage; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxham C, Vangen S. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson T. Chasing progress: Beyond measuring economic growth. New Economics Foundation; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing. 1993; 57 :53–70. doi: 10.1177/002224299305700304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 1998; 10 (2):175–195. doi: 10.1080/09537329808524310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klijn EH, Koppenjan JMF. Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management Review. 2000; 2 (2):135–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koppenjan JFM. The new public governance in public service delivery. Eleven International Publishing; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koppenjan JFM, Klijn EH. Managing uncertainties in networks. Routledge; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotler P, Levy SJ. Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing. 1969; 33 :10–15. doi: 10.1177/002224296903300103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee TW. Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage Publications; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Pennec M, Raufflet E. Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 148 :817–834. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-3012-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liao MN, Foreman S, Sargeant A. Market versus societal orientation in the nonprofit context. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 2001; 6 (3):254–268. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.151. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loorbach D. Governance for sustainability. Sustainability. 2007; 3 (2):1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maniates M. In search of consumptive resistance: The voluntary simplicity movement. Confronting Consumption. 2002; 14 :199–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonald A, Clarke A, Huang L. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability: Designing decision-making processes for partnership capacity. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 160 :409–426. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3885-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martini M, Hölsgens R, Popper R, editors. Governance and management of sustainable innovation. Springer International Publishing; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuire M. Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66 (s1):33–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narver JC, Slater SF. The effect of market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing. 1990; 54 :20–35. doi: 10.1177/002224299005400403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne SP. The new public governance? Public Management Review. 2006; 8 (3):377–387. doi: 10.1080/14719030600853022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne SP, editor. The new public governance? Routledge; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Provan KG, Milward HB. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1995; 40 (1):1–33. doi: 10.2307/2393698. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rip A, Kemp R. Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL, editors. Human choice and climate change. Battelle Press; 1998. pp. 327–399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts NC. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review. 2000; 1 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robertson J. The new economics of sustainable development: A briefing for policymakers. Kogan Page; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight. 2001; 3 :15–31. doi: 10.1108/14636680110803003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sachs J. From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet. 2012; 379 :2206–2211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaltegger S, Beckmann M, Hockerts K. Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability: Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing. 2018; 10 (2):131–152. doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2018.092709. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local food networks. Journal of Rural Studies. 2006; 22 :383–395. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G, Smith A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics. 2007; 16 (4):584–603. doi: 10.1080/09644010701419121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G, Haxeltine A. Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C. 2012; 30 (3):381–400. doi: 10.1068/c10222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi Y, Jang HS, Keyes L, Dicke L. Nonprofit service continuity and responses in the pandemic: Disruptions, ambiguity, innovation, and challenges. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80 (5):874–879. doi: 10.1111/puar.13254. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater SF, Narver JC. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation performance relationship? Journal of Marketing. 1994; 58 :46–55. doi: 10.1177/002224299405800104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen E, Torfing J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society. 2011; 43 (8):842–868. doi: 10.1177/0095399711418768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen E, Torfing J. Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. American Review of Public Administration. 2017; 47 (7):826–839. doi: 10.1177/0275074016643181. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy. 2005; 34 (10):1491–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith A, Fressoli M, Thomas H. Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 63 :114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J. Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review. 2019; 21 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Ansell C. Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review. 2017; 19 (1):37–54. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1200662. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Triantafillou P. Enhacing Public Innovation by transforming public governance? In: Torfing J, Triantafillou P, editors. Enhacing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Cristofoli D, Gloor P, Meier A, Trivellato B. Taming the snake in paradise: Combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation. Policy & Society. 2020; 39 (4):592–616. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2020.1794749. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trivellato B, Mariani L, Martini M, Cavenago D. Leading knowledge mobilization for public value: the case of the Congestion Charge Zone (Area C) in Milan. Public Administration. 2019; 97 (2):311–324. doi: 10.1111/padm.12559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trivellato B, Martini M, Cavenago D. How do organizational capabilities sustain continuous innovation in a public setting? The American Review of Public Administration. 2021; 51 (1):57–71. doi: 10.1177/0275074020939263. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 ( https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E ).
• Van Huijstee MM, Francken M, Leroy P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences. 2007; 4 (2):75–89. doi: 10.1080/15693430701526336. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Lunenburg M, Geuijen K, Meijer A. How and why do social and sustainable initiatives scale? A systematic review of the literature on social entrepreneurship and grassroots innovation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2020; 15 :1–2. doi: 10.1007/s11266-020-00208-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Puyvelde S, Caers R, Du Bois C, Jegers M. The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2012; 41 (3):431–451. doi: 10.1177/0899764011409757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Zeijil-Rozema C, Kemp R, Martens P. Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sustainable Development. 2008; 16 (6):410–421. doi: 10.1002/sd.367. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin J, Jamali D. Collide or collaborate: The interplay of competing logics and institutional work in cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04548-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Inefficient Water Management (Argentina) California Water Markets (California, USA) Drought Water Banks (California,USA) The Public Trust Doctrine and Water Allocation (Colorado, USA) Controlling Pollution through Disclosure Strategies (Indonesia) Liberalization of Water Markets (Jakarta, Indonesia) Paying for Forest Water Services (Costa Rica) Water Pricing in Marin County (California) Proposition 65's Effects on Lead in Drinking Water (California) Dealing with Drought (Australia)

Sustainable Development Goals

• All UCL SDG case studies

Case studies

Search here results.

• UCL students simulate UN SDG summit | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL research helps shape international decarbonisation policy toolkit | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Researchers at UCL review UK’s progress towards achieving the SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Making UCL catering services more sustainable | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL start-up takes ‘living walls’ to new level of sustainability | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL undergraduates inspire more girls to keep up their football | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• New UCL master’s course to accelerate sustainable energy solutions | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Fourth Gold Athena Swan award recognises UCL’s commitment to equity and inclusion | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL student consultancy challenge boosts charity action towards the SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• New UCL MSc to equip ecologists with cutting-edge data science tools | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London

Please enable JavaScript to use this page or visit this page for a non javascript version.

Research outputs

View all UCL’s published research related to the SDGs.

View all SDG research​ →

About the UN's 17 SDGs

Simon Knowles Head of Coordination (SDGs) [email protected]

•   MINDS@UW Home
• MINDS@UW Stevens Point
• University College
• UWSP Libraries
• UWSP theses

Sustainable Community Development: Case Studies from India and Kenya

Permanent Link

Comprehensive evaluation of newly cultivated land sustainable utilization at project scale: A case study in Guangdong, China

• Research Articles
• Published: 17 April 2024
• Volume 34 , pages 745–762, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Chang Guo 1 , 2 ,
• Xiaobin Jin 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Xuhong Yang 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Weiyi Xu 1 , 2 ,
• Rui Sun 1 , 2 &
• Yinkang Zhou 1 , 2 , 3  

Cultivated land plays a pivotal role in ensuring national food security, particularly in populous nations like China, where substantial investments are made to develop cultivated land as a counterbalance to construction-occupied areas. Consequently, long-term, effective monitoring of the utilization of newly cultivated land becomes imperative. This study introduces a comprehensive monitoring framework, designed for refined scales, that leverages remote sensing data. The framework focuses on the sustainable utilization of newly cultivated land, emphasizing utilization sustainability, productivity stability, and landscape integration. Its effectiveness was validated through a case study in Guangdong province, China. The results revealed satisfactory utilization sustainability and improved productivity stability of newly cultivated land in Guangdong, though landscape integration showed sub-optimal results. Furthermore, the comprehensive evaluation categorized the newly cultivated land into three levels and eight types. The study recommends enhancing the site selection process for newly cultivated land and improving the long-term monitoring, as well as incentive and constraint mechanisms, for their utilization. This study can provide a scientific reference to bolster the implementation of cultivated land protection policies, thereby contributing significantly to high-quality economic and social development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Alexander P, Prestele R, Verburg P H et al. , 2017. Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Global Change Biology , 23(2): 767–781.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bai Y, Liu Y S, Li Y H et al. , 2022. Land consolidation and eco-environmental sustainability in Loess Plateau: A study of Baota district, Shaanxi province, China. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 32(9): 1724–1744.

Bren d’Amour C, Reitsma F, Baiocchi G et al. , 2017. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 114(34): 8939–8944.

Chen H, Tan Y Z, Xiao W et al. , 2022. Urbanization in China drives farmland uphill under the constraint of the requisition–compensation balance. Science of The Total Environment , 831: 154895.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Chen W X, Ye X Y, Li J F et al. , 2019. Analyzing requisition–compensation balance of farmland policy in China through telecoupling: A case study in the middle reaches of Yangtze River Urban Agglomerations. Land Use Policy , 83: 134–146.

Dang Y X, Liao Y B, Kong X B et al. , 2022. Discussion on the top-level design and optimization of the system of cultivated land requisition–compensation balance. Natural Resource Economics of China , 35(6): 43–48, 88. (in Chinese)

Google Scholar  

Deng X Z, Huang J K, Rozelle S et al. , 2006. Cultivated land conversion and potential agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy , 23(4): 372–384.

Fan X J, Quan B, Deng Z W et al. , 2022. Study on land use changes in Changsha–Zhuzhou–Xiangtan under the background of cultivated land protection policy. Sustainability , 14(22): 15162.

Foley J A, DeFries R, Asner G P et al. , 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science , 309(5734): 570–574.

Guan X, Jin X B, Wei D Y et al. , 2014. Discussion on the construction of comprehensive monitoring system for land consolidation project. China Land Sciences , 28(4): 71–76. (in Chinese)

He J H, Guan X D, Yu Y, 2016. A modeling approach for farmland protection zoning considering spatial heterogeneity: A case study of E-zhou city, China. Sustainability , 8(10): 1052.

Huang H P, Chen W, Zhang Y et al. , 2021. Analysis of ecological quality in Lhasa Metropolitan Area during 1990–2017 based on remote sensing and Google Earth Engine platform. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 31(2): 265–280.

Kang L, Zhao R, Wu K N et al. , 2021. Impacts of farming layer constructions on cultivated land quality under the cultivated land balance policy. Agronomy , 11(12): 2403.

Kuang W H, Liu J Y, Tian H Q et al. , 2022a. Cropland redistribution to marginal lands undermines environmental sustainability. National Science Review , 9(1): 66–78.

Kuang W H, Zhang S W, Du G M et al. , 2022b. Monitoring periodically national land use changes and analyzing their spatiotemporal patterns in China during 2015–2020. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 32(9): 1705–1723.

Li H B, Jin X B, Liu J et al. , 2022. Analytical framework for integrating resources, morphology, and function of rural system resilience: An empirical study of 386 villages. Journal of Cleaner Production , 365: 132738.

Li J, Zhang S, Hu Y M et al. , 2021. Performance evaluation of cultivated land occupation compensation balance policy in Guangdong province from the perspective of time and space. Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment , 38(6): 1064–1073. (in Chinese)

Liao W H, Jiang W G, Huang Z Q, 2022. Spatiotemporal variations of eco-environment in the Guangxi Beibu Gulf Economic Zone based on remote sensing ecological index and granular computing. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 32(9): 1813–1830.

Lichtenberg E, Ding C R, 2008. Assessing farmland protection policy in China. Land Use Policy , 25(1): 59–68.

Liu B, Zhou H T, Qi M J et al. , 2022. Requisition–compensation balance relief for hydraulic projects based on cultivated land quality improvement. Sustainability , 14(20): 13576.

Liu C Y, Song C Q, Ye S J et al. , 2023. Estimate provincial-level effectiveness of the arable land requisition-compensation balance policy in mainland of China in the last 20 years. Land Use Policy , 131: 106733.

Liu L, Liu Z J, Gong J Z et al. , 2019. Quantifying the amount, heterogeneity, and pattern of farmland: Implications for China’s requisition-compensation balance of farmland policy. Land Use Policy , 81: 256–266.

Liu L, Xu X L, Chen X, 2015. Assessing the impact of urban expansion on potential crop yield in China during 1990–2010. Food Security , 7: 33–43.

Liu X W, Zhao C L, Song W, 2017. Review of the evolution of cultivated land protection policies in the period following China’s reform and liberalization. Land Use Policy , 67: 660–669.

Liu Y S, Wang Y S, 2019. Rural land engineering and poverty alleviation: Lessons from typical regions in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 29(5): 643–657.

Lu X H, Zhang Y W, Zou Y C, 2021. Evaluation the effect of cultivated land protection policies based on the cloud model: A case study of Xingning, China. Ecological Indicators , 131: 108247.

Malakoff K L, Nolte C, 2023. Estimating the parcel-level impacts of agricultural conservation easements on farmland loss using satellite data in New England. Land Use Policy , 132: 106814.

Muruganantham P, Wibowo S, Grandhi S et al. , 2022. A systematic literature review on crop yield prediction with deep learning and remote sensing. Remote Sensing , 14(9): 1990.

Qie L, Pu L J, Tang P F et al. , 2023. Gains and losses of farmland associated with farmland protection policy and urbanization in China: An integrated perspective based on goal orientation. Land Use Policy , 129: 106643.

Seto K C, Ramankutty N, 2016. Hidden linkages between urbanization and food systems. Science , 352(6288): 943–945.

Shen X Q, Wang L P, Wu C F et al. , 2017. Local interests or centralized targets? How China’s local government implements the farmland policy of Requisition–Compensation Balance. Land Use Policy , 67: 716–724.

Shi W J, Tao F L, Liu J Y, 2013. Changes in quantity and quality of cropland and the implications for grain production in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Food Security , 5(1): 69–82.

Skog K L, Steinnes M, 2016. How do centrality, population growth and urban sprawl impact farmland conversion in Norway? Land Use Policy , 59: 185–196.

Song W, Pijanowski B C, 2014. The effects of China’s cultivated land balance program on potential land productivity at a national scale. Applied Geography , 46: 158–170.

Song X Q, Ouyang Z, Li Y S et al. , 2012. Cultivated land use change in China, 1999–2007: Policy development perspectives. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 22(6): 1061–1078.

Su M, Guo R Z, Hong W Y, 2019. Institutional transition and implementation path for cultivated land protection in highly urbanized regions: A case study of Shenzhen, China. Land Use Policy , 81: 493–501.

Sun R, Sun P, Wu J X et al. , 2014. Effectiveness and limitations of cultivated land requisition-compensation balance policy in China. China Population, Resources and Environment , 24(3): 41–46. (in Chinese)

Tan M H, Li Y Y, 2019. Spatial and temporal variation of cropland at the global level from 1992 to 2015. Journal of Resources and Ecology , 10(3): 235.

Tan Y Z, Chen H, Lian K et al. , 2020. Comprehensive evaluation of cultivated land quality at county scale: A case study of Shengzhou, Zhejiang province, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17(4): 1169.

van Vliet J, 2019. Direct and indirect loss of natural area from urban expansion. Nature Sustainability , 2(8): 755–763.

Wang J, Lin Y F, Zhai T L et al. , 2018. The role of human activity in decreasing ecologically sound land use in China. Land Degradation & Development , 29(3): 446–460.

Wang X M, Zhou D Y, Jiang G H et al. , 2023. How can the sustainable goal of cultivated land use in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau be realized? Based on a research framework of cultivated land use patterns. Frontiers in Environmental Science , 11: 1134136.

Wang Y F, Cheng L L, Zheng Y, 2023. An adjusted landscape ecological security of cultivated land evaluation method based on the interaction between cultivated land and surrounding land types. Land , 12(4): 833.

Wei X, Liu L M, Zhang D X et al. , 2022. Performance evaluation on the policy of balancing paddy field occupation and reclamation in Hunan province. China Land Sciences , 36(1): 57–67. (in Chinese)

Yang H, Li X B, 2000. Cultivated land and food supply in China. Land Use Policy , 17(2): 73–88.

Yang J, Huang X, 2021. 30 m annual land cover and its dynamics in China from 1990 to 2019 (1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo.

Yang S L, Bai Y, Alatalo J M et al. , 2022. Spatial-temporal pattern of cultivated land productivity based on net primary productivity and analysis of influencing factors in the Songhua River basin. Land Degradation & Development , 33(11): 1917–1932.

Ye S J, Ren S Y, Song C Q et al. , 2022. Spatial patterns of county-level arable land productive-capacity and its coordination with land-use intensity in mainland of China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 326: 107757.

Zhang B L, Sun P L, Jiang G H et al. , 2019. Rural land use transition of mountainous areas and policy implications for land consolidation in China. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 29(10): 1713–1730.

Zhang M Y, Chen Q X, Zhang K W, 2021. Influence of the variation in rural population on farmland preservation in the rapid urbanization area of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 31(9): 1365–1380.

Zhao C, Zhou Y, Li X G et al. , 2018. Assessment of cultivated land productivity and its spatial differentiation in Dongting Lake region: A case study of Yuanjiang city, Hunan province. Sustainability , 10(10): 3616.

Zheng W W, Li S M, Ke X L et al. , 2022. The impacts of cropland balance policy on habitat quality in China: A multiscale administrative perspective. Journal of Environmental Management , 323: 116182.

Zhou X, Chen W, Wang Y N et al. , 2019. Suitability evaluation of large-scale farmland transfer on the Loess Plateau of northern Shaanxi, China. Land Degradation & Development , 30(10): 1258–1269.

Zhou Y, Li X H, Liu Y S, 2021. Cultivated land protection and rational use in China. Land Use Policy , 106: 105454.

Zhu H Y, Li X B, 2003. Discussion on the index method of regional land use change. Journal of Geographical Sciences , 13(5): 643–650. (in Chinese)

Zhuang D F, Liu J Y, 1997. Study on the model of regional differentiation of land use degree in China. Journal of Natural Resources , 12(2): 10–16. (in Chinese)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China

Chang Guo, Xiaobin Jin, Xuhong Yang, Weiyi Xu, Rui Sun & Yinkang Zhou

Key Laboratory of Coastal Zone Exploitation and Protection, Ministry of Land and Resources, Nanjing, 210023, China

Jiangsu Land Development and Consolidation Technology Engineering Center, Nanjing, 210023, China

Xiaobin Jin, Xuhong Yang & Yinkang Zhou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaobin Jin .

Additional information

Foundation: National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.42271259

Author: Guo Chang, specialized in sustainable land use.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Guo, C., Jin, X., Yang, X. et al. Comprehensive evaluation of newly cultivated land sustainable utilization at project scale: A case study in Guangdong, China. J. Geogr. Sci. 34 , 745–762 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-024-2225-z

Download citation

Received : 19 July 2023

Accepted : 04 January 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-024-2225-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• land consolidation
• newly cultivated land
• utilization sustainability
• productivity stability
• landscape integration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

News from the Columbia Climate School

Student Spotlight: Navigating Sustainable Development for My Career Through Capstone Projects

Lylia Saurel

Adrienne Day

Marcella Petiprin and Andrew Pontius, two seniors from the Undergraduate Program in Sustainable Development (SDEV) program, have completed capstone projects at Columbia’s Climate School. They share some of their experiences and advice for students who wish to pursue an academic career in sustainability.

Marcella Petiprin was born in Flint, Michigan, and grew up passionate about the outdoors with a focus on water. Her family owns a Christmas tree farm and she is enthusiastic about giving back to the community. She currently sits on the board of the Flint Classroom Support Fund.

What drew you to the sustainable development major or special concentration?

I was most excited to discover that the sustainable development curriculum was one that focused on the social and economic features of environmental and climate issues. While I initially came to Columbia as an environmental science major, I’d always been aware of and interested in the important interactions between people and the environment because, to me, understanding these interactions is fundamental to making the monumental changes necessary to combat climate change and environmental degradation.

What advice do you have for students who wish to enroll in the Sustainable Development program?

My advice is to take as many cross-listed courses as possible. The sustainable development major is unique in the wide breadth of courses offered in different departments, and I wish I’d taken advantage of more economics, engineering and environmental biology courses. Through the Sustainable Development program, not only have I been able to build a strong foundation in Earth and environmental science, I’ve been able to explore how to build upon them in the real world and to shift the priorities of businesses and governments toward a more sustainable future.

What was your favorite class in the Sustainable Development program and why?

The energy law course with Michael Gerrard sparked my interest in renewable energy, motivated me to choose a career path in the energy sector, and gave me a robust foundation of knowledge which has been supremely valuable.

How did the program shape your understanding of sustainability?

The program has most strongly expanded my view of sustainability as being universally applicable. Sustainability is important and accessible to all people, all communities and all sectors. Sustainability is not only a discipline in and of itself, but a part of all other disciplines. While this certainly expands the scope of sustainability, it also gives me great hope for a future where sustainability is an ingrained practice for everyone.

Can you talk about your capstone project? 

The Pearl River in Jackson, Mississippi, has a major flooding issue exacerbated by a local precedent of permitting development in the floodplain and bureaucratic gridlock within local, regional and state authorities, which has prevented Jackson from moving forward on any new flood control projects for nearly 40 years. In a partnership facilitated by the Community and College Partners Program (C2P2), our capstone project has been working with the nonprofit Mississippi Citizens United for Prosperity (MCUP).

We developed a detailed community survey to make up for a historical lack of tangible data on the scale of flooding and the direct and indirect impacts on the local neighborhoods. Our visit to Jackson and direct engagement with the local community improved our understanding of the issue tremendously. We noticed there was a lack of understanding of relevant hydrology principles, available flood management options, as well as the private, nonprofit and political interests, which were all vying for public support, all stemming from a lack of centralized information.

Ultimately the capstone workshop was one of the most rewarding experiences of my academic career. It was incredibly meaningful to work with MCUP to develop deliverables that would be useful to the community and have a positive impact. My advice for future groups, those working with MCUP and in general, is not to underestimate nor underutilize local embedded knowledge. There is a long history of privileged students parachuting into communities with backgrounds that are often different than our own and attempting to implement what we idealize as effective solutions, but it is extremely important to remember that the people who live in these communities are informed, knowledgeable, thoughtful and should be engaged in problem-solving every step of the way.

Andrew Pontius is originally from Bremerton, Washington. Before joining the Sustainable Development program at Columbia, he had an 11-year dance career in Seattle and Europe where he toured and performed in both ballet and contemporary dance. As a lover of the outdoors, Andrew has also lived on a sailboat in Seattle.

During my time in Dresden, Germany, I had fantastic roommates who encouraged me to be more mindful about my consumption and to live more efficiently. That is how my concern with consumption and waste started, but then once back in Seattle, waking up in the morning to ash everywhere from nearby forest fires was a real wake-up call. Without the beauty of our natural world, what is there?

Do it! We need everyone tackling sustainability problems and how to share resources for all. There are a lot of great classes to choose from, so be curious and try new things. The workload is heavy, but professors are very supportive. If you’re searching for a way to connect with a grassroots community organization, I would recommend completing a capstone with Radley Horton .

What were your favorite classes in the Sustainable Development program and why?

As someone with interests in the future of energy in the US, the energy law class with Michael Gerrard was one of my favorites and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about energy. The Catskills watershed class was a very cool way to learn about New York City’s deep roots and history for sourcing its water. All the sustainable development professors I’ve had the chance to work with were kind, approachable and inspiring.

This is an empowering degree and I’m very thankful to have gone through such a rigorous yet enjoyable program. The program taught me that sustainability means different things for different people and that not everyone can afford to switch how they source and use energy or what products they buy. My classes have highlighted that sustainable development is a complex issue that needs to be addressed from a variety of angles.

Can you talk about your capstone project and what it entailed?

The Jackson Mississippi capstone group collaborated with a community organization on flood-related research. Together, we developed a comprehensive survey and crafted an informative story map for their webpage. Additionally, utilizing a Problem Tree framework—an approach to problem identification and solution generation used in engineering—we identified and connected various direct and indirect causes and effects of flooding in Jackson, providing valuable insights for the community.

The best part of the capstone project was working with local community members and getting to know people who fight for the well-being of their community. We conducted research while visiting the neighborhoods most impacted by persistent flooding. There are of course work expectations, but it is also somewhat freeform, so you have to apply yourself to learn and contribute to the group. The project taught me about comprehensive social and Earth sciences that informed both my personal and professional lives.

Related Posts

Sustainable Development Program Hosts Annual Alumni Career Conversations Panel

Register to Present at the Climate School’s Earth Month and Student Research Showcase

Student Spotlight: Exploring the Impact of Sustainable Development on Study Abroad Experiences

Celebrate over 50 years of Earth Day with us all month long! Visit our Earth Day website for ideas, resources, and inspiration.

Get the Columbia Climate School Newsletter →

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

17.4: Case Study- Sustainable Stormwater Management

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 94361

Learning Objectives

After reading this module, students should be able to

• describe how stormwater runoff affects water quality in urban watersheds
• explain how stormwater is currently managed in the United States
• analyze some of the conventional and innovative techniques that have been developed to address the water pollution and flood risks associated with urban stormwater runoff

Introduction

This module reviews some of the complex issues of urban stormwater management. It first examines the hydrological issues affecting the discharge of stormwater runoff to our urban rivers and streams, and then provides an overview of how urban stormwater is managed under the Clean Water Act. After describing the conventional approaches to urban stormwater management, the final section provides an overview of various "sustainable" strategies, especially the use of "green infrastructure," that can be considered to reduce the water pollution and flooding risks generated by urban stormwater runoff.

The Hydrological Context of Urban Stormwater

Stormwater runoff (or overland flow) is the portion of precipitation reaching the ground that does not infiltrate into soils, is not taken up and transpirated by plants, nor is it evaporated into the atmosphere. It is an especially important component of the hydrological cycle in urban areas, since it can cause both pollution and flooding risks to nearby waterways and their adjacent communities. It should also be noted that many of the current models of global climate change predict changes in the hydrological cycle in the future. They predict many more severe storms likely in parts of the Midwest as a result of the moisture and energy in the atmosphere increasing over the next century because of increasingly higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. Higher frequencies of more severe storms are likely to further increase the pollution and flooding risks posed by stormwater runoff, especially in urban areas ( USGCRP, 2009 ).

Current strategies to manage these risks employ the concept of a watershed – the variations in natural topography that cause both surface water and surficial ground water to flow downhill towards lower-lying areas or points of discharge, usually to a stream or river. Watershed boundaries are defined topographically by mapping variations in land elevations around waterways that create hydrologic divides between adjacent watersheds and between sub-watersheds. The amount of stormwater that ends up as runoff within a watershed not only depends on the intensity and amount of precipitation reaching the ground in the form of rain or snow, but also on the characteristics of the watershed itself. State and federal environmental protection agencies have developed a number of sophisticated hydrological simulation models that enable the amount and characteristics of stormwater runoff (in terms of its volume and the pollutant load that would be carried by the stormwater to rivers and streams within the watershed) to be forecasted. They forecast this based on historical estimates of the amount of precipitation entering the watershed, the characteristics of a watershed's terrain and soils, the amount and location of impermeable surfaces associated with the development of the watershed, and the extent and types of ground cover within the watershed's drainage area ( NRC 2008, Appendix D ). A change in any of these factors will affect the amount and extent of flooding and water pollution attributable to the discharge of stormwater runoff into a river or stream.

Since the pattern of precipitation varies seasonally the water pollution and flooding risks posed by stormwater runoff also tend to vary seasonally. Generally, larger flood and pollution risks will occur in the spring, when rapid snowmelt can generate a lot of runoff volume (especially if the ground is still frozen), which can carry pollutants that have accumulated within the snow cover over the winter months to nearby streams and rivers. There can also be storm-related flood and pollution "spikes" when heavy rain strikes the ground at a faster rate than it can be infiltrated into the soils, or when it is prevented from infiltrating into the soils by roofs, paving, or other impermeable surfaces. This initially high volume of stormwater runoff can carry greater amounts of contaminants – a process often described as the "first flush" phenomenon . Usually, the first half-inch of stormwater will be carrying the highest pollution load, so its capture and management becomes a priority for water quality protection.

How some of these features, especially the amount of impervious surface associated with different densities of development, affect the generation of urban runoff are illustrated in Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\). Research by the Center for Watershed Protection has found that stream quality becomes impaired when 10% of the stream's watershed is impervious and that an urban stream's ecology is severely impacted when more than 25% of its watershed is impervious.

When flowing downhill within a watershed, stormwater runoff can pick up pollutants from various anthropogenic sources and activities. It can also collect pollutants from the atmospheric deposition of particulates and air pollutants carried to the earth's surface by precipitation, by windblown dust, or by simply settling out of the atmosphere. Urban runoff can also dissolve or transport chemicals that may be found naturally in soil or nutrients which may have been deliberately added to lawns. Common urban pollutants can include such things as pesticides and fertilizers applied to residential lawns, parks and golf courses, enteric microbes from animal waste, industrial chemicals that may have been accidentally spilled on the ground or improperly stored, or oils and greases leaking from cars parked in lots or on driveways.

As stormwater runoff flows towards lower-lying areas of the watershed, it carries these contaminants with it and therefore contributes to the pollution of the stream, river or lake into which it is discharging. Once it reaches a river or stream, the concentrations of pollutants in the receiving waters are naturally reduced as the contaminants are carried downstream from their sources, largely through dilution but also by settlement, by uptake by posure to sunlight and oxygen, and by interactions with various chemical and physical proplants and animals (including bacteria and other microorganisms), through degradation by excesses occurring within the waterway and its streambed.

Regulating Urban Runoff

Water pollution risks within watersheds are managed under the federal Clean Water Act , which requires state environmental protection agencies to regulate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waterways and waterbodies pursuant to federal guidelines ( NRC, 2008 ). The Clean Water Act employs maximum concentration standards for common pollutants that can impair the recreational or ecological functions of a river or stream. One class of polluters regulated under the Clean Water Act consists of those that are directly discharging pollutants into a waterway from an industry or sewage treatment plant through a pipe, ditch, outfall or culvert – these are called point sources .

Point sourcesare managed under the Clean Water Act by the requirement that each direct source have a renewable discharge permit, called a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits set limits for the various pollutants being discharged by that source based on the ambient water quality of the waterway and its proposed use (e.g. its use as a public water supply source, or for fishing, or recreational use). The other regulated class of polluters managed under the Clean Water Act consists of those sources that introduce contaminants into a waterway through overland or subsurface flow – these are called non-point sources , and include most of the water pollution loads carried by urban stormwater runoff.

Since the 1970s, the principal approach used by state and federal environmental protection agencies to control water pollution is to try to simply reduce the quantity of pollutants being released into our rivers and streams ( NRC, 2008 ). NPDES permits control the direct discharge of contaminants into our waterways, while non-point sources are managed through Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are designed to limit the amount of pollutants released into a watershed, where they could later be carried by stormwater runoff or by groundwater flow to a receiving stream or river. Depending on the pollutant of concern, BMPs could be as simple as requiring pet owners to clean up after their pets or as complex as requiring that industries using toxic materials design, construct and manage loading and storage areas in order to keep spilled materials from being transported off-site by stormwater or groundwater flow. BMPs can even include encouraging some industries to change their production processes in order to reduce the total amount of toxic materials they use, a pollutant reduction strategy known as pollution prevention (since the fewer toxics used, the lower the risk that they will inadvertently be released into the environment).

The strategy of simply reducing the amount of pollutants entering the environment is complicated by the fact that many of the non-point pollutants are not amenable to management through local BMPs. For example, agricultural activities are expressly exempted from the Clean Water Act, even though stormwater runoff from farms and animal feedlots can carry agricultural chemicals, fertilizers and manure into adjacent waterways, along with topsoil from freshly-plowed fields. Pollutants could also be introduced into an urban watershed by the deposition of air pollutants. Airborn particulate matter, for example, can be transported very long distances by the wind, making most locally administered BMPs (except possibly instituting regular street-sweeping programs) ineffective in reducing the distribution and quantities of these types of urban stormwater pollutants.

In response to these challenges, the Clean Water Act was amended to require state environmental protection agencies to calculate pollution budgets for the impaired segments of their streams and rivers. The "impaired segments" were those reaches of a stream or river that did not meet the water quality standards for their intended uses. Models were used to calculate the "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of pollutants entering the waterway through both point and non-point sources that would enable the stream segments to achieve their highest proposed use. The Clean Water Act's new TMDL program provides a more sophisticated framework for evaluating the impacts of non-point pollution on water quality. However, given the limitations of trying to put more and better BMPs into place, environmental protection agencies have begun to refocus some of their attention from reducing the total amount of pollutants being released within a watershed to also reducing the amount of stormwater runoff.

Environmental protection agencies have developed strategies for urban stormwater management that involve modifying a development site so that more precipitation would be retained on-site rather than flowing off of it into nearby waterways or waterbodies. These stormwater retention strategies initially stressed traditional engineering solutions, such as installing a stormwater collection system that temporarily stores the stormwater on-site in order to reduce the rate and amount of stormwater being released to a waterway. The strategies were later expanded to include various site modifications, such as constructing vegetated buffer strips or swales (ditches),in order to encourage more stormwater to infiltrate into the ground.

Reducing the volume of urban stormwater leaving a site as runoff also offers an additional hydrologic benefit in urban watersheds – reducing flood risks ( NRC 2008 ). Besides having the potential to carry pollutants, stormwater runoff discharge increases the amount of water entering into a lake, stream or river, increasing both the water volume and flow velocity of the waterway. A relatively large amount of stormwater runoff entering a waterway over a relatively short time can quickly raise a stream's water levels beyond its banks, causing flooding that could threaten adjacent development. Stormwater contribution to a river or stream can also increase the velocity of the stream's flow, causing increased channel and bank erosion, undercutting or damaging dikes, levees and other water control structures, and scouring the stream or river bed. Stream edge or streambed erosion can impair water quality by increasing the cloudiness (or turbidity) of the waterway, which can also damage aquatic and riparian habitats.

Stormwater-induced flood risks are managed by the National Flood Insurance Act , where hydrologic models (adjusted by historical flood events) are used to forecast the potential flooding caused by a 100-year storm (a storm that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year). The Act forces financial institutions to require homeowners within the designated 100-year floodplains to purchase flood insurance in order to get a mortgage, with the federal government subsidizing the insurance premiums if the community adopts a flood management program restricting development from extremely hazardous areas and instituting building code changes to lessen flood damage.

In assessing flood risks, it is important to realize that managing the volume and rate of urban stormwater being discharged from developed areas does not affect the total amount of stormwater that is being discharged to a river or stream within a watershed – they only affect the timing of when a storm's precipitation will be discharged to the waterway ( NRC, 2008 ). Both the conventional and the newer, more sustainable, ways of managing stormwater discussed below seek to delay the time it takes for stormwater runoff to reach a waterway in order to reduce the water levels and flow velocities of the receiving streams after a storm. Slowing the rate by which stormwater is being contributed to a stream spreads out the peak of the resultant flood levels over a longer time period, allowing many flood risks to be substantially reduced.

Conventional Stormwater Management

Urban stormwater is traditionally managed by the construction of engineered stormwater facilities, such as storm sewers and detention basins, as part of the land development process. These engineering processes are specifically designed to modify the natural hydrology of a site. For example, when land is being developed, the parcel is usually graded for development and stormwater infrastructure is installed to channel the stormwater from individual lots into a separate stormwater sewer system connected to a detention basin where it is retained until it can be discharged off-site. Site preparation also includes elevating building sites so that they are constructed on slightly elevated "pads" to encourage stormwater to flow away from building foundations and toward the streets. After reaching the street, stormwater is then directed to the stormwater sewers by curbs and gutters.

Conventional stormwater detention facilities were historically built to reduce off-site flood risks, and were not expressly designed to reduce off-site water pollution risks. Any stormwater detention that was provided was only temporary, often providing an insufficient retention time to allow the natural attenuation of any pollutants that were carried by the runoff into the detention basin – unlike the natural attenuation processes occurring in a river or riparian wetland (where ambient pollution levels are gradually reduced through dilution, oxidation, chemically binding to rocks and soils, being gobbled up by microorganisms, etc.). Stormwater is usually detained on-site after a storm only for a period of hours or, at most, days and then released to a waterway. Some of the particulate contaminants in the stored runoff might settle out if they are large or heavy enough to do so during that short time, some might infiltrate into the soils in the bottom of the detention basin, and some pollutants might be taken up by grass lining the basin, but many pollutants still end up being carried into the waterway along with the released stormwater.

Since the 1990s, environmental protection agencies have begun to consider the water pollution impacts of releases from stormwater detention facilities, after the Clean Water Act was amended to require states to treat stormwater discharges from detention basins as a type of direct source and to require that NPDES permits be phased in for discharges from Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems ("MS4") in cities and urban areas above certain population thresholds ( NRC, 2008 ). The NPDES permits issued under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) MS4 program now require the water pollution loads from stormwater detention basin discharges to be assessed through the creation and adoption of local stormwater management plans and that the contaminants carried by the stormwater runoff to the basins for later re-release to a waterway be better managed and reduced through the adoption of local BMPs. MS4 permit regulations issued by state environmental protection agencies usually involve the issuance of a "general permit" by the agency, applying to all applicable Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems located within the state’s designated urban areas.

Stormwater Sewer Systems Located within the State's Designated Urban Areas

A different set of stormwater management issues arise in older urban areas that are already developed. Most of the United States' older cities and suburbs, especially those established in the late-19 th and early 20 th centuries, do not have Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems. Instead, they have what are known as combined sewer systems – sewers that carry both the stormwater runoff from paved streets and the wastewater (sewage) from homes, stores and factories. These combined sewers transport the mixed wastewater and stormwater to municipal sewage treatment plants where the diluted sewage is treated and then discharged to a waterway under an NPDES permit ( NRC, 2008 ).

Water quality problems arise when rainstorms deposit more precipitation in the city than can be handled by the sewage treatment plant. As the diluted wastewater begins to fill up the combined sewer system at a faster rate than it can be treated, the sewage treatment plant operators are faced with a difficult choice – they can either allow the diluted sewage to continue to back up in the sewers, eventually flooding residents' basements (a politically unpopular as well as unhealthy option), or they can allow the diluted wastewater to bypass the sewage treatment plant and be discharged directly into the waterway, with the untreated wastewater's pollutant levels usually exceeding the limits set forth in the plant's NPDES permit. Most treatment plant operators choose the more politically acceptable option of releasing the wastewater in violation of their NPDES permit, creating water pollution incidents called combined sewer overflows (CSOs) .

Strategies to Manage CSOs

CSO problems are very difficult and expensive to resolve in older cities. One approach to managing stormwater off-site is to tear up the city's streets, digging up the old combined sewers and replacing them with separate stormwater and wastewater sewer systems. The high costs of retrofitting new separate sewer systems are often prohibitively expensive, especially in these times of stressed state and local budgets. Moreover, the extensive traffic disruptions involved in replacing most streets would not make this a politically popular choice.

A second approach to managing CSO issues off-site in developed areas is to keep the combined sewer system, but to construct a reservoir system large enough to store the diluted wastewater until it can be treated by the sewage treatment plant. This is the approach used by both the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago in its Tunnel and Reservoir Plan , or TARP. Although most of TARP has been built, all of the reservoirs have not yet been completed because of federal budgetary cutbacks. The tunnels themselves and one reservoir are currently able to temporarily store the combined sewage and the runoff from only the first 3/8-inch (.95 cm) of rain falling in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District's service area. The extremely high expense of installing such a supplementary sewage and stormwater storage system would make it unaffordable to most cities unless very substantial federal and state grants are provided.

A third way to address CSO issues off-site is to use the streets themselves to temporarily store stormwater by installing low speed bump-like structures at intersections and by restricting the streets' sewer intakes to the combined sewer system ( US EPA, 2000 ). This urban retrofit strategy would allow stormwater to flow from lots into the streets, which would flood up to their gutter tops during heavy storms, functioning as stormwater reservoirs. The stored stormwater would then slowly be discharged to the combined sewers through the restricted grates over a period of hours after the storm, reducing the amount of diluted sewage flow to a quantity that could be adequately treated by sewage treatment plants. The flooding of streets, impairing automobile access, and the possibility of stormwater overflowing the curbs and damaging parked cars and adjacent property during very heavy rainstorms may not make this a politically popular option, though.

Managing Urban Stormwater More Sustainably

There is a fourth approach to dealing with CSO problems, which involves intercepting and delaying the discharge of precipitation from a parcel of land before it flows off-site to a separate or combined sewer system, or to an adjacent waterway. Encouraging on-site storage or infiltration reduces the stormwater contribution to a combined sewer's flow in developed areas, thereby reducing the amount of diluted wastewater being generated and enabling combined sewer systems to better handle their wastewater loads during rainstorms. These decentralized on-site approaches to managing stormwater could also be used to reduce the amount of conventional stormwater infrastructure needed in new developments using separate stormwater sewer systems. Because these on-site approaches are less resource-intensive and more cost-effective than conventional stormwater management approaches, they are also more sustainable investments.

On-site stormwater management techniques are also often known as "green infrastructure" ( Jaffe et al., 2010 ). Development projects using "green infrastructure" for urban stormwater management are commonly known as " Low Impact Developments ." Low Impact Development projects using green infrastructure usually allow stormwater to be managed at lower costs than by using conventional detention practices ( US EPA, 2007 ).

There are essentially three strategies for on-site stormwater management: (1) techniques that encourage the infiltration of stormwater into soils to reduce its volume before it reaches a sewer system, or which employ more selective grading and the planting of vegetation to reduce its rate of flow from the site; (2) techniques that encourage the temporary storage of stormwater on-site, instead of transporting it off-site for centralized detention within a development project or a municipality; and (3) techniques, such as the construction of artificial wetlands, which also allow some degree of longer-term retention and treatment of the stormwater by natural processes before it is discharged. Infiltration techniques might also provide some water treatment capabilities due to the longer retention times of groundwater before discharge, but the degree of such treatment would largely depend on soil characteristics, the amount of overlying vegetation and the depth of the soil's unsaturated zone.

Increasing Stormwater Infiltration

Techniques to decrease the volume of stormwater runoff and to reduce the rates at which it is discharged include the use of permeable paving and the construction of "rain gardens" and vegetated swales (see Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). Permeable paving uses materials which are specially formulated to have air voids in their matrix, allowing water to flow into and through the paving materials after they are installed. It also includes the more common installation of precast porous pavers that are designed with holes through their surfaces, allowing stormwater to flow through their holes into the soils beneath them. Permeable paving needs to be periodically maintained because its pores can be clogged by fine grains of topsoil or with other small particles (such as soot from atmospheric deposition) carried along by the runoff. Maintenance includes periodically sweeping or vacuuming the paving to control the build-up of clogging particles.

"Rain gardens" can also be used to encourage stormwater to infiltrate into the soils, where it can be taken up by plants and transpired to the atmosphere, evaporated from the soils, or allowed to infiltrate deeper into the soils to become groundwater. Rain gardens are created in areas of low-lying terrain that are expressly designed for, or engineered with, well-drained soils and are usually planted with deep-rooted native vegetation that often can survive the drier soil conditions between rains. Rain gardens can be quite effective in intercepting and infiltrating stormwater being discharged from roofs, with roof downspouts directing the discharge of stormwater into a rain garden instead of allowing it to flow across the lot and into the street sewer system. Some native vegetation, however, may have special maintenance requirements, such as the periodic burning needed to manage some prairie plants.

Vegetated ditches or swales can also be used to transport stormwater runoff to a conventional stormwater management system, with the vegetation planted in the ditch slowing the rate of stormwater flow while also allowing a portion of the runoff to be infiltrated into the soils or taken up by plants. In many cases, vegetated swales and rain gardens can provide less-expensive alternatives to the installation of separate stormwater sewer system, since it reduces the need for the construction of street gutters, grates, street catchment basins and sewer pipes ( US EPA, 2007 ). Interception of the stormwater by infiltration and plant uptake in a rain garden or vegetated swale may also reduce the amount, capacity and size of the sewers that would have to be built to manage a predicted volume of stormwater, if these green infrastructure techniques are used to supplement a conventional stormwater collection system.

Increasing Interim On-site Storage

Sustainable management techniques that can temporarily store stormwater on-site until it can be released off-site to a sewer system or to conventional stormwater detention facilities include the use of "green roofs" and rain barrels connected to roof downspouts. Rain barrels allow precipitation to be collected and stored, and then used for non-potable purposes (lawn irrigation, for instance) allowing the captured stormwater to substitute for more expensive, treated water (Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\)).

A green roof is a flat roof surface that uses amended soil materials installed above a layer of waterproof roofing materials to allow shallow-rooted plants to be planted. While still being an impermeable feature of a development site (because of its waterproof layer), a green roof can temporarily store rainwater before it is discharged to the ground by the roof gutters and downspouts (Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\)). Just as a rain barrel can store (and re-use) a portion of the stormwater precipitation being discharged from impervious roofs, the soils of a green roof can capture and temporarily store stormwater precipitation as the pores between the soil particles fill up with rainwater. Green roofs can even partially reduce the runoff's pollution load through plant uptake and by other biological and physical processes within the roofs' soil materials while they are saturated. Because of the need to both water-proof the roof while installing a biological system on top of it, green roofs tend to cost more than conventional roofs, even ignoring the additional structural engineering that might be necessary to accommodate the weight of the green roof's soil and plantings.

The stormwater management benefits of rain barrels and green roofs depend on their storage capacity relative to the amount of impervious surface area of the roof with which they are associated. Rain barrels might be able to capture only a fraction of an inch of the stormwater falling on a roof and being discharged from a downspout, while several inches of amended soils on a rooftop might be able to store substantially more precipitation before it evaporates, is taken up by the roof's plants, or is discharged from the green roof via its gutters and downspouts. In both cases, however, the interception and temporary retention of stormwater by these green technologies may allow conventional stormwater management systems to function more efficiently by reducing the amount of stormwater being discharged into the systems. They would also certainly reduce some of the " peakiness " of stream flooding by being able to temporarily store and then release stormwater from impermeable roof surfaces later after a storm event.

Treating Urban Stormwater

Some sustainable stormwater management approaches have the potential to actually treat the water to remove pollutants as well as control its volume and rate of discharge. These strategies include constructing wetlands and planting trees. Wetlands have proven to be very effective in both temporarily storing stormwater runoff and reducing flooding risks, while also reducing the pollutant load carried to the wetland (because of its high biological activity that can capture and degrade the contaminants). As a result, the federal government has adopted a "no net loss" policy with respect to protecting existing wetlands. Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (under U.S. EPA oversight) review any proposals to fill or damage any wetlands that are directly hydrologically associated with navigable waterways. Any actions affecting existing wetlands will need a Corps 404 permit in addition to any local or state approvals.

Besides preserving existing wetlands, new wetlands can also be designed, created and maintained as part of a "green" stormwater management strategy ( NRC, 2008 ). The constructed wetland can be designed and used to intercept, temporarily store and treat stormwater runoff before it is released to a stream or river. Water control structures are also usually installed to ensure that the constructed wetlands remain flooded for long enough periods of time to support wetland vegetation. If appropriate plants are selected, they can also provide important habitats. Wetland maintenance involves the control of invasive plant species (e.g. Purple Loosestrife) and the management of any sediment that can be carried by stormwater runoff into the wetland, since the sedimentation of wetlands can fill them in, impairing their ecological and treatment functions.

The planting of trees is an especially valuable strategy to manage urban stormwater, especially when the trees become mature. Tree canopies break rain velocity, reducing runoff flow rates, while tree roots can stabilize soils against being eroded by urban runoff. Tree canopies reduce temperatures, mitigating urban heat island effects, by providing shade and through their transpiration processes. Their leaves and roots can also capture some stormwater contaminants and provide carbon sequestration to reduce climate change impacts. Moreover, trees provide a valuable soil amendment as their fallen leaves decay into mulch, improving the infiltration rate and biological activity of surrounding soils, while larger broken branches falling into urban streams can slow stream velocities and provide improved riparian and aquatic habitat. The shading of streams by riparian trees is particularly important in ensuring that a stream's ecological functions remain resilient in the face of rising temperatures caused by global climate change.

Conclusions

All of the green infrastructure and Low Impact Development techniques that provide interim on-site stormwater storage to reduce flood risks can also provide some pollution removal capabilities, as well. The American Society of Civil Engineers and U.S. EPA maintain an International Stormwater BMP Database of development projects using green infrastructure. This on-line resource reviews the effectiveness of various stormwater management practices and makes these sustainable techniques more accessible to local officials and municipal public works departments charged with managing stormwater runoff in their communities.

There is increasing public interest in using sustainable stormwater management techniques to replace or supplement conventional stormwater facilities. The U.S. federal government, for example, is now requiring that green infrastructure be used in all federal projects above a certain size to manage urban stormwater runoff. Local officials are also showing a greater interest in these sustainable approaches, since they are often less expensive to install and maintain over their life-spans than conventional stormwater sewer systems and detention facilities. Finally, state governments are beginning to set aside money in their revolving loan funds for public infrastructure that is earmarked for green infrastructure projects. It is likely that this interest in sustainable urban stormwater management will continue to grow.

For more information about the:

• Clean Water Act, visit http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcwa.html .
• International Stormwater BMP Database, visit http://www.bmpdatabase.org .
• Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, visit http://www.mwrd.org/irj/portal/anonymous/tarp .
• Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, visit http://v3.mmsd.com/DeepTunnel.aspx .
• National Flood Insurance Act, visit http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2216 .

Gulliver, G.S. & Anderson, J.L. (eds.). (2008). Assessment of Stormwater Best Management Practices. Stormwater Management Practice Assessment Study . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Jaffe, M., Zellner, M., Minor, E., Gonzalez-Meler, M., Cotner, L., Massey, D., Ahmed, H., Elbert M., Wise, S., Sprague, H., & Miller, B. (2010). Using Green Infrastructure to Manage Urban Stormwater Quality: A Review of Selected Practices and State Programs . Springfield, IL: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/docs/public-act-recommendations.pdf

National Research Council. (2008). Urban Stormwater Management in the United States . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2000, October). Street Storage for Combined Sewer Surcharge Control: Skokie and Wilmette, Illinois (Factsheet). (EPA Publication No. EPA-841-B-00-005C). Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 17, 2011 from http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/pubs/Street_Storage_Factsheet.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007, December). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact Development (LID) Strategies and Practices . (EPA Publication No. EPA 841-F-07-006). Washington. D.C. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/lid/costs07/documents/reducingstormwatercosts.pdf

U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved May 18, 2011 from http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf

Attributi on

Modified by Kyle Whittinghill from the following sources:

• Sustainable Stormwater Management from Sustainability: A Comprehensive Foundation by Tom Theis and Jonathan Tomkin, Editors ( CC-BY ). Download for free at CNX .

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Unlocking success: key elements of sustainable business models in the wooden multistory building sector provisionally accepted.

• 1 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
• 2 Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Finland
• 3 Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Finland
• 4 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
• 5 University of Helsinki, Finland

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Few studies have investigated the processes and strategic interactions among the Wooden Multistory Construction (WMC) industry actors, its customers, and local policymakers. Further insights into this field are needed for a sustainability transition in the construction sector. This study aims to explain WMC's corporate sustainability strategies for co-creation with customers and municipalities. This was based on interviews with key informants in the sector and WMC actors using three case studies in Sweden. Our interviews focused on business processes, interactions with users and municipalities, sustainability, and innovation in the WMC market. The findings reflect the notion of a slow transition in the Swedish WMC market toward using more wood as a bearing structure, which is supported by the competitive advantages and climate performance of wood. The three case studies indicated that the corporate focus is currently placed on incremental improvements in operations, price competitiveness, and successful project management. However, in contexts where wood construction is seen as a unique advantage, collaborations between the construction industry and end users have developed and served as novel platforms for WMC market development.

Keywords: business strategy, Co-creation of value, sustainability transition, Sustainable business model, timber construction

Received: 02 Jan 2024; Accepted: 11 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Nagy, Jussila, Häyrinen, Lähtinen, Mark-Herbert, Toivonen, Toppinen and Roos. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Anders Roos, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, 75651, Uppsala, Sweden

People also looked at

• Get involved

UNDP continues to support Turkmenistan in improving energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources

April 15, 2024

Mary, April 11-12, 2024:  Within the framework of the joint project of UNDP and the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Turkmenistan "Sustainable Cities in Turkmenistan: Integrated Green Urban Development in Ashgabat and Avaza” on April 11-12, 2024, a training workshop on "Studying international experience in introducing innovative energy efficiency technologies in the electric power industry " was held in the city of Mary.

The event was attended by specialists from the Ministry of Energy of Turkmenistan, teachers and students of the State Energy Institute of Turkmenistan (SEIT, Mary), specialists of the Research and Production Center "Renewable Energy Sources" at SEIT, as well as specialists and international consultants of the UNDP Sustainable Cities project in Turkmenistan.

The purpose of the training seminar was to study international experience in the implementation of innovative energy efficiency technologies in the power sector. During the presentations, the collaborative efforts of specialists from the Ministry of Energy of Turkmenistan, SEIT, and the UNDP project focused on pilot projects aimed at introducing innovative energy efficiency technologies and promoting the use of renewable energy sources were demonstrated.

The participants of the training were familiarized with the activities of the UNDP Sustainable Cities project on the creation of a regulatory framework pertaining to energy efficiency and renewable energy sources (RES). This included discussions on the National Strategy for Renewable Energy Development in Turkmenistan until 2030, the Law of Turkmenistan "On Renewable Energy Sources", and the new Law of Turkmenistan "On Energy Efficiency and Energy Saving." In addition, the possibility of cooperation between the State Energy Institute and the UNDP Sustainable Cities project in Turkmenistan in the field of renewable energy and energy efficiency development was further discussed.

"The seminar served as an important platform for the exchange of experience and knowledge in the field of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. The UNDP "Sustainable Cities" project pays special attention to the development of renewable energy sources and the introduction of modern energy-efficient technologies in Turkmenistan's power sector, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus, contribute to fulfilling the country's international commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change, " noted Batyr Ballyev, UNDP Project Manager.

The project "Sustainable Cities in Turkmenistan: Integrated Green Urban Development in Ashgabat and Avaza”, funded by the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) and UNDP, is aimed at promoting the development of sustainable cities and reducing the negative impacts of urban growth in the country, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, impact of increasing energy consumption and household waste, as part of the country’s efforts to achieve the socio-economic development goals.

The joint practical steps for the development of renewable energy sources in Turkmenistan and the introduction of innovative energy efficiency technologies in the electricity industry allow reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus, contribute to the country's efforts to fulfill its international obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Related  content

Press Releases

Undp and partners held a regional seminar on water diplomacy to strengthen cooperation for sustainable water management in central asia.

UNDP in Turkmenistan, together with the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea (IFAS) in Central Asia and the Scientific Information Centre of the Interstate ...

UNDP concludes a series of workshops on integrating climate change adaptation into water management planning

Within the framework of the project "Developing a National Adaptation Planning Process in Turkmenistan", implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (...

Advancing Land Management in Turkmenistan: UNDP/GEF Training Workshops on Land measurement Technology

On 2-6 April 2024, within the framework of the UNDP/GEF project “Conservation and sustainable management of land resources and high nature value ecosystems in the...

UNDP conducted a training on greenhouse gas inventory in Turkmenistan

Within the framework of the joint project of UNDP and the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Turkmenistan "Sustainable Cities in Turkmenistan: Integrated Gre...

UNDP promotes Turkmenistan's participation in efforts to restore the Aral Sea basin at the ICSD meeting in Astana

Within the framework of the UNDP/GEF project “Conservation and Sustainable Management of Land Resources and High Nature Value Ecosystems in the Aral Sea Basin for...

Infographic contest“Forests and Innovations”

The UNDP/GEF project “Conservation and sustainable management of land resources and high nature value ecosystems in the Aral Sea basin for multiple benefits” in T...

Promoting Energy Efficiency in Turkmenistan: UNDP Holds a Series of Events in Mary

UNDP concludes a series of workshops on climate change adaptation for decision-makers from Ashgabat and Dashoguz velayat

Content Search

Online certificate course - project design monitoring and evaluation for development organizations and ngos.

This course presents the principles of Project Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DM&E) cycle. DM&E is a critical element of development projects as it provides the information needed to make decisions for project management, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the interventions and satisfy accountability requirements.

This course will enable you to understand and put into practice the principles of sound results-based monitoring and evaluation methodology in your project; you will build an understanding of the most common processes, tools, techniques, and theories that are necessary to monitor and evaluate a project. This course examines the defining characteristics of monitoring and evaluation techniques and introduces the student to a variety of project management techniques that can be applied in a development project context. Through case study exercises and group discussions, participants will learn the links between design, monitoring and project evaluation. This course will stimulate ideas on how to design and implement monitoring and evaluation processes that strengthen accountability and learning and contribute to project effectiveness.

The course is based on an interactive case-study approach, with hands-on exercises, homework reading materials, participant presentations, and online discussions. It focuses on peer learning and exchanging information on practical experiences in monitoring and evaluation. The online course has a duration of three weeks. Each week, the instructor will provide instructions to help students complete the required assignments. Students will participate in discussions and receive feedback from the course instructor, and have access to videos, lectures, tests, and assignments that can be accessed at any time. Students will apply their understanding in case study exercises that will be reinforced with feedback from the instructor.

As a student, you will follow a detailed schedule to complete the assigned activities, participate in discussion forums, and submit their exercises in order to receive a grade. Successful completion of all the course requirements will lead to the award of a Certificate of Completion.

Click here to download a copy of the Course Brochure

Course Content:

Lesson 1 – The Project Concept

• The DME Cycle
• Development Strategy
• Project Identification
• Needs Analysis
• Theory of Change
• Project Concept Note

Lesson 4 – Project Monitoring

• Monitoring Fundamentals
• Project Monitoring
• Baseline Study
• Data Management
• Information Management
• Monitoring Reports

Lesson 2 – Project Design

• Design Principles
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Problem Analysis
• Objectives Analysis
• Logframe Matrix
• Project Proposal

Lesson 5 – Project Evaluation

• Evaluating the Project
• Types of Evaluations
• Principles of Evaluation
• Evaluation Process Evaluation
• Developing a ToR
• Evaluation Reports

Lesson 3 – Project Planning

• Planning the Project
• Monitoring Plan
• Selecting Indicators
• Management Plan
• Information Systems
• Participatory Planning

Lesson 6 – Project Learning

• The Learning Project
• Learning Cycle
• Reflective Practice
• Lessons Learned
• After Action Reviews
• Learning Principles

Course Information:

• Course materials are available for download from the online course module page to allow for printing and review.
• Evaluation. It is required that participants complete the course evaluation after they take the final exam.
• Credits. This course provides 35 PDUs (Professional Development Units)* or 35 contact hours.
• This course is part of the certification program CDPM (Certified Development Project Manager). For more information about this program, please visit our website at https://www.pm4dev.com/elearn/cdpm.html

Student Feedback

"The courses at PM4DEV are great as they are easy to fit into your schedule as a working professional and you are very well supported in your learning. Would definitely recommend these courses to people wanting to expand their knowledge in PM." Adrianova Carrion - UCA- Nicaragua

"The course has really helped me to have a clear understanding of ways I can apply my field experiences in the design, Monitoring and Evaluation a project" John Olahan, Save the Children, Nigeria

"As someone now entering the development sector, this course helped me to gain a solid foundation in designing, monitoring and evaluating projects. The course material was relevant, in-depth and understandable. I have even started meeting a lot of the course terminology in my everyday work." Romario Edwards, Trinidad and Tobago

"The PDME course provided me many tools that I can apply in my work as a programme manager. It also gave me a better understanding of the organisation's processes concerning design, monitoring, evaluation and learning and how I can help to improve these processes on a project level to assure effective and efficient implementation of project activities and successful completion of a project. " Melany Oey, Liberia

Click here to read feedback from our students

In 2013, PM4DEV became a PMI Global Registered Education Provider (R.E.P.). It means that our courses meet the strict criteria from the largest project management organization of the world, and that increases the value you obtain from learning at PM4DEV. Your investment in learning is secure, and you can be certain that our courses have the quality you expect.

Fee information

How to register.

Visit this link to register online: https://pdme4dev.eventbrite.com/?aff=reliefweb

On the registration page, you can choose your preferred payment methods. We accept all major credit cards in a secure online payment system. We also accept payments via money transfer. Registration will close one day before the start of the course. If you have any questions or require more instructions to send your payment, please contact me at:

Ana Torrelio

Student Services

[email protected]

www.pm4dev.com

Atlanta, USA

Latest Updates

Syria + 1 more

Siria: Muertes masivas, tortura y otras violaciones de derechos humanos contra las personas detenidas tras la derrota del Estado Islámico. Nuevo informe

Syrie. nombreux décès, actes de torture et violations des droits humains infligés aux personnes détenues au lendemain de la défaite de l’état islamique – nouveau rapport, georgia: police must be held accountable for use of excessive force against protesters, aftermath: injustice, torture and death in detention in north-east syria [en/ar/ku].