Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

Designing collaborative governance for nature-based solutions

Shirin Malekpour a, b, *, Sylvia Tawfik b, c, Chris Chesterfield b
a
Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Australia
b
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash University, Australia
c
School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Wendy Chen Urbanisation, population growth and climate change, among other challenges, have put pressure on urban
infrastructure systems, prompting a shift from large-scale centralised infrastructure to localised nature-based
Keywords: solutions. Mainstreaming nature-based solutions requires a change in the planning and governance systems,
Collaborative management and mediating new relationships and configurations between different actors through collaborative governance.
Governance design
Yet, limited guidance exists on how to design collaborative governance for delivering nature-based solutions.
Transformative impact
This has led to collaboration processes that are established on an ad-hoc basis, relying on the experiences, skills
Urban transformation
Water sensitive urban design and viewpoints of their champions to endure. This paper synthesises and extends a suite of theoretical frame­
works with the practice-based knowledge of urban practitioners across Australia (n = 42), to develop a frame­
work for designing collaborative governance. The framework offers key principles and considerations for
designing collaborations on nature-based solutions. It emphasises upfront planning that carefully considers the
desired outcomes (the ‘why’), assesses the operating environment/context (the ‘what’), engages the right actors
at the required level of influence (the ‘who’), and uses fit-for-purpose structures and process for interaction (the
‘how’). The framework also highlights that all those elements need to be considered with the intended level of
impact in mind. To illustrate the application of our framework, we will use empirical examples from major urban
development programs across Australia that have adopted water sensitive urban design (as part of the broader
family of nature-based solutions) through cross-sectoral collaborations.

1. Introduction
Urbanisation, population growth, and climate change, among other
challenges, are exerting pressure on urban infrastructure systems. It has
been estimated that about two thirds of the infrastructure to be built by
2050 does not exist today (Bartlett, 2019), with a large part of this to be
built in cities. The demand for new infrastructure presents a prime op­
portunity for using ecologically sound urban and infrastructure planning
(McPhearson et al., 2016). Many commentators have questioned the
ability of conventional, large and centralised infrastructure to stand up
to challenges we face with growth and climate change, and have argued
that localised nature-based solutions would provide a more sustainable
alternative, as we upgrade and extend our urban infrastructure into the
future (Díaz et al., 2015; Nesshöver et al., 2017; Wong and Brown,
2009).
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are interventions that mimic natural
processes and structures to address challenges exacerbated by urban
growth and climate change, such as ecosystem degradation, flooding,
urban heat, and resource scarcity (Dorst et al., 2019). In addition to
physical structures and processes, NBS have been discussed as an inte­
grative concept, and a systemic approach to urban sustainability and
resilience, as the provide multiple benefits such as urban cooling,
stormwater treatment, urban amenity and improved human wellbeing
(Dorst et al., 2019; Nesshöver et al., 2017). They involve technological,
ecological, economic and social dimensions that need to work in tandem
to provide the anticipated benefits. As such, planning, design and
management of NBS requires a transdisciplinary approach that can
address the complex relationships among its different dimensions
(McPhearson et al., 2016).
Transforming urban infrastructure planning with NBS under a
complex set of interdependent stressors cannot lie with a single urban
actor, but requires collaboration between different actors across
different urban sectors (Pickett et al., 2013). Frantzeskaki and col­
leagues discuss NBS in the context of urban transformations, high­
lighting that NBS not only involve new forms of infrastructure, but they
also mediate new configurations and relationships between actors across

* Corresponding author at: 8 Scenic Boulevard, Monash University Clayton Campus, Vic 3800, Australia.
E-mail address: shirin.malekpour@monash.edu (S. Malekpour).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127177
Received 23 September 2020; Received in revised form 17 February 2021; Accepted 7 May 2021
Available online 10 May 2021
1618-8667/© 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
S. Malekpour et al.
policy, planning, implementation and operation (Frantzeskaki et al.,
2017). The place-based and decentralised nature of NBS undermines a
‘cookie-cutter’ approach to infrastructure delivery, and dictates new
systems of planning and governance that are sensitive to local context
and inclusive of local actors. In particular, implementing NBS requires
collaborative governance, shared between urban planners, infrastruc­
ture providers, and other urban actors, such as developers, NGOs, and
civil society (Frantzeskaki, 2019).
Collaborative governance is an umbrella term for a range of struc­
tures and processes that shape collective action among independent
organisations or actors to address a public matter (Scott and Thomas,
2017). It is about sharing information, capacities, resources and decision
making between two or more sectors, in order to achieve a set of out­
comes that wouldn’t be achieved separately (Bryson et al., 2015).
Therefore, it has also been referred to cross-sectoral collaboration
(Bryson et al., 2015), or collaborative public management (McGuire,
2006). While some scholars characterise collaborative governance as a
process to deliver outcomes that could not otherwise be achieved
(Emerson et al., 2012), others conceive of it as a strategic intervention,
or a strategic choice by decision makers, to achieve the desired outcomes
(Newig et al., 2018).
Several conceptual frameworks for understanding collaborative
governance have been developed in the past few decades, especially in
the public administration and strategic management literature. Some of
them try to break down and explain the different components of cross-
sectoral collaborations, such as the drivers of collaboration, or collab­
oration dynamics (Emerson et al., 2012; Thomson and Perry, 2006).
Others draw on empirical data to set out different variables that influ­
ence the success or failure of collaborations, such as trust, or leadership
(Ansell and Gash, 2008). The existing frameworks serve as useful
analytical tools for explaining collaborative governance. What is lacking
though is guidance on how to set up cross-sectoral collaborations in
different contexts. For example, the literature explains that collaborative
governance could be more effective where there is some kind of
collaborative advantage to be gained. However, there is little guidance
on how to discern what the collaborative advantage is in a specific
context (Bryson et al., 2015). The lack of guidance on designing
collaborative governance has often led to collaboration processes that
are set up on an ad-hoc basis, relying on the viewpoints and experiences
of individuals who attempt to lead the process (Stoker et al., 2018).
To address this gap, this paper puts forward a framework for
designing collaborative governance to deliver NBS. The framework
provides a series of principles and considerations for diagnosing the
context, and establishing cross-sectoral collaborations that suit that
particular context. It can be used by researchers to analyse and facilitate
collaborative governance, and by practitioners—individuals and orga­
nisations (e.g. across different levels of government, infrastructure
planners, utilities, developers, businesses, NGOs and civil society)—to
assist them in establishing cross-sectoral collaborations for integrated
planning and implementation of NBS. The guidance is integrative, i.e. it
considers a broad delineation of collaborative governance, covering
different governance processes (institutions), as well as strategic actions
(agency). By collaborative governance, we mean the totality of actions
and interactions in which governments, public, private, and civil society
actors participate, in order to address a problem or create an opportunity
in a given context.
To develop the framework, we synthesised a suite of conceptual
studies and findings from the literature on NBS and collaborative
governance. We extended the scholarly knowledge with practice-based
2
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
knowledge, using a range of interviews and workshops with practi­
tioners in Australia, who have been involved in major urban develop­
ment projects incorporating Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)1, as
part of the broader family of NBS. We will specifically draw on four
empirical cases of WSUD adoption through place-based collaborative
governance, to explain the different components of our framework. Our
interviewees and workshop participants had personally been engaged
in, or were very familiar with these cases, and we—the authors—have
been directly involved as researchers and expert advisors in three of the
four cases over the past few years.
2. Materials and methods
The framework we offer in this study incorporates and integrates the
knowledge from the literature, with empirical data.
2.1. Knowledge from the literature
The building blocks of our framework draw on the foundational
literature on collaborative governance (sometimes referred to as ‘cross-
sectoral collaboration’ or ‘collaborative public management’). Bryson
and colleagues, in a review of a decade of work on collaborative
governance, highlight and discuss the most significant theoretical and
empirical studies in the field up to 2015 (Bryson et al., 2015). We
reviewed those seminal studies as indicated by Bryson and colleagues,
plus studies published after Bryson’s review (i.e. between 2015 and
2020) that extend our understanding of collaborative governance.
Most of the literature seek to explain one or a few specific aspects of
collaborative governance, such as the drivers of collaboration (Scott and
Thomas, 2017) collaboration structures (McGuire, 2006), collaboration
processes (Agranoff, 2007; Thomson and Perry, 2006), or collaboration
management strategies (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Klijn et al., 2010). Some
bring these dimensions together to develop an integrative con­
ceptualisation of collaborative governance (Bryson et al., 2015; Emerson
et al., 2012).
To contextualise understandings from the collaborative governance
literature in relation to NBS, we also reviewed NBS literature that dis­
cusses cross-sectoral collaborations as a key governance mechanism for
planning and implementation (e.g. Ferreira et al., 2020; Frantzeskaki,
2019; Frantzeskaki et al., 2017; Kabisch et al., 2017; Raymond et al.,
2017).
2.2. Knowledge from practice
To further develop and validate our framework, we used multiple
data sources, including: 1) interviews with Australian practitioners
involved in major urban development programs incorporating WSUD; 2)
document analysis of metropolitan policies and plans in relation to those
urban development programs; 3) workshops with practitioners to test,
validate and refine our framework.
The one-on-one interviews involved 42 practitioners across
Australia, who have been involved in planning, decision making, or
implementation of WSUD, as part of the broader family of NBS. Our
interviewees were from state government authorities, water utilities,
local councils, as well as private engineering, consulting, development
businesses, and community groups. They had worked in and observed
processes across urban planning and water infrastructure planning, and
had different experiences with cross-sectoral collaborations.
Semi-structured interviews took place between November 2018 and
1
WSUD is a concept, as well as an approach to urban water servicing, based
on the integration of urban water cycle planning and urban design (Wong,
2006). WSUD accounts for context and place in water infrastructure delivery,
and aims to ensure that additional potential values of water (such as amenity,
urban greening) are given prominence during the urban design process.
S. Malekpour et al.
August 2020. We asked interviewees about their experiences with cross-
sectoral collaborations, and how current governance arrangements be­
tween the urban and water sectors enable or constrain collaborative
approaches to delivering WSUD.
In addition to interviews, we ran two workshops to test and scrutinise
our framework. The first workshop was undertaken face-to-face in June
2019, during the early stages of the framework development. It involved
7 practitioners based in Melbourne, Australia. The second workshop was
held online in April 2020 after the framework had been further devel­
oped, and involved 11 practitioners from across Australia. In both
workshops, the framework for designing collaborative governance was
presented to participants, and they were asked to scrutinise and
comment. The framework was modified and refined subsequently,
drawing on input from participants, as well as a broader review of the
literature on NBS and collaborative governance to address identified
gaps.
2.3. Empirical cases
In explaining the framework in the next section, we will draw on four
cases of urban development projects or corridor planning across
Australia (Fig. 1) that feature water sensitive solutions. They include the
Brabham development project (Western Australia), Upper Merri sub-
catchment planning (Victoria), Currumbin Ecovillage development
Fig. 1. Locations of the four cases of urban development incorporating NBS.
3
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
(Queensland), and Fishermans Bend urban renewal program (Victoria).
These are the cases that our interviewees and workshops participants
drew on substantially in providing their input, as examples of collabo­
rative governance. These cases differ in the geographic location, insti­
tutional context, scale of implementation, and nature of collaborative
efforts. We reviewed these cases carefully, and we, the authors, have
been directly involved in three of the four cases (i.e. Brabham, Upper
Merri and Fishermans Bend) in the past few years as researchers and
independent experts. We have helped set up and then facilitated the
collaboration process in Brabham, conducted a retrospective evaluation
of the collaboration process in the Upper Merri, and advised the infra­
structure planning process for Fishermans Bend. These involvements
meant we had first-hand observations and in-depth understanding of
each case. Each case is briefly explained below, and we will use them as
examples of place-based cross-sectoral collaborations as we explain our
framework in the subsequent sections (see also Figs. 2–5).
2.3.1. Brabham, Perth, Western Australia
Brabham is a 220-hectare greenfield development area located on
the Swan Coastal Plain in Perth’s north-east growth corridor, about 23
km from Perth’s central business district. The development will provide
housing, schools, neighbourhood shops and recreational facilities for
about 12,000 new residents. The high groundwater table in the area,
particularly during winter, requires the importation of fill (sand) to
S. Malekpour et al.
Fig. 2. A collaborative workshop in the Brabham Action Learning Partnership
(credits: second author, 26.04.2019).
Fig. 3. Impression of enhanced public open space surrounding a water treat­
ment wetland in the Upper Merri Creek sub-catchment (credits: Tiange Wu,
CRCWSC, 29.08.2019).
Fig. 4. Housing development in Currumbin Ecovillage incorporating water
harvesting solutions (credit: Terence Kearns, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, flickr).
facilitate urban development. This has severe impacts on existing
vegetation and the landscape’s natural hydrology.
In 2018, the Department of Communities (land owner) and Peet
Brabham Pty Ltd (developer) worked with a national research organi­
sation, the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities
4
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
Fig. 5. Impression of green infrastructure network for flood management and
amenity in Fishermans Bend (credits: Realm Studios for CRCWSC, 14.11.2016).
(CRCWSC), and key stakeholders, to co-design innovative technical in­
terventions that could sustainably address those development chal­
lenges. Key ideas supported by the Brabham project team included the
use of green and blue infrastructure to minimise the importation of fill
by maintaining and integrating established trees into the urban design,
celebrating water in the landscape through lightweight housing solu­
tions, and harvesting the additional water discharged by urban devel­
opment and land use change (CRCWSC, 2018). The Brabham Project
team subsequently recognised further collaborative work was required
to navigate and influence planning and approval processes in order to
advance the implementation of these ideas. Accordingly, the Brabham
Action Learning Partnership was established in March 2019 between the
CRCWSC, the land owner, the developer, and the Department of Water
and Environmental Regulation (groundwater regulator) to collabora­
tively explore key issues and opportunities with a broad range of
stakeholders, including the City of Swan (local government) (Tawfik
et al., 2020). The partnership led to an agreement on a planning
pathway for implementing an alternative non-potable water supply
scheme for irrigating public open space using the excess water dis­
charged by development (known as ‘subsoil drainage’ or ‘rejected
recharge’), and an intent to explore other ideas further.
2.3.2. Upper Merri, Melbourne, Victoria
This case relates to integrated water management planning for
(predominantly) greenfield, and (partly) infill growth in the Upper Merri
sub-catchment in Melbourne’s north. The area features established
suburbs, rural landscapes, creeks, remnant bush and grasslands, and
spans three local government areas (Hume City Council, City of Whit­
tlesea and the Mitchell Shire Council). The population in the area is
predicted to grow from 196,000 in 2019, to 372,000 by 2031. As the
population in the sub-catchment grows incrementally over the next
years, land uses will progressively shift from rural to urban across the
middle and upper catchment, and low to high urban density in the lower
catchment, increasing strain on existing infrastructure and the natural
environment (Foundry, 2019).
Recognising the need to proactively plan for future development in a
way that preserves and enhances highly valued waterways and cultural
and natural heritage area, stakeholders such as the Wurundjeri Woi
Wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation (Traditional Owner
group), Victorian Planning Authority (state agency), the three local
governments, Melbourne Water (statutory water authority) and Yarra
Valley Water (water utility) came together in a two-tiered steering
committee and a working group format, to pilot a collaborative planning
approach to integrated water management. Utilising place-based water
harvesting and recycling, the project aims to deliver more efficient, cost-
effective and context-appropriate water servicing solutions that
contribute to a broad range of community and environmental outcomes.
S. Malekpour et al.
The partnership will ultimately produce an integrated water manage­
ment plan for the sub-catchment that specifies planning requirements,
development conditions, and infrastructure servicing approaches. This
will include wastewater recycling, as well as water sensitive urban
design strategies for capturing and reusing stormwater in a way that
mimics the natural water cycle (Foundry, 2019).
2.3.3. Currumbin Ecovillage, Gold Coast, Queensland
Currumbin Ecovillage is a 110-hectare mixed use greenfield modern
development located in the Gold Coast hinterland, about 25 km south of
the city. The site, which now houses about 470 residents with 80 % open
space, has no mains water and wastewater connection. Previous land
uses (pastoral and arable farming) had degraded the ecologically sig­
nificant environment. The developer, Landmatters, sought to create a
residential community that exemplifies best practice in sustainable
urban design and development. The site presented an opportunity to
showcase low impact development practices through place-based
design, preservation of natural landforms and habitats and integrated
water management.
The development involved an extensive community consultation
program that enabled design input from indigenous groups, local resi­
dents, stakeholder groups, referral agencies and the general public. The
developer also cultivated a cooperative relationship with the local
government, City of Gold Coast, to seek and secure their early buy-in for
the non-conventional development project, and to progress the approval
process at a suitable pace (Tanner, 2007). While these negotiations
contributed to high transaction costs, it ultimately served to produce a
flexible and collaborative planning approach to development. The first
home was completed in 2006. Since then, the Currumbin Ecovillage has
won 33 international, national and local awards for its design and
leadership in sustainability (The Ecovillage Blog, 2021). Approximately
80 % of the development site is open space, with dwellings clustered in
‘ecohamlets’ around community greenways. From a water perspective,
the ecovillage is self-sufficient, with potable water demand met through
localised collection, storage, treatment and use of rainwater, and
wastewater managed through an on-site wastewater treatment and
recycling plant. Stormwater is managed through a system of swales,
bioretention filters and ponds to ensure the quality and quantity of site
runoff remains unchanged from pre- to post-development (Tanner,
2007).
2.3.4. Fishermans Bend, Melbourne
Fishermans Bend is a 485-hectare urban renewal project within 5 km
of Melbourne central business district (CBD), connecting the CBD to the
bay. The relatively flat, low lying area is flood-prone (tidal and storm
surge). It has contaminated soil due to previous and existing industrial
land uses. The area is expected to undergo significant transformation
over the next 40 years. As Australia’ largest urban renewal area, Fish­
ermans Bend will house approximately 80,000 residents and provide
employment for up to 80,000 people (CRCWSC, 2015). Located in one of
the most liveable cities in the world, the scale and profile of the project
provides unique opportunities to adopt innovative and sustainable
infrastructure servicing approaches (Malekpour et al., 2017).
Early collaborative efforts led by one of the water utilities, South East
Water, can be traced back to 2009, focused on servicing one of the five
precincts that currently make up the renewal area. As interest in
adjoining precincts grew, so too did the stakeholder consortia, eventu­
ally including the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Plan­
ning (state agency), Melbourne Water (statutory water authority), South
East Water (water utility) and the two local governments (City of Port
Phillip and City of Melbourne). The consortia became increasingly for­
malised after the declaration of the renewal area in 2012. This led to the
establishment of the Fishermans Bend Taskforce in 2016, and the
Drainage Working Group in 2018, which reports to the Fishermans Bend
Development Board. With the support of the CRCWSC and expert con­
sultants, the working group developed a number of water sensitive
5
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
strategies that informed the infrastructure strategy, precinct planning
and developer contributions for Fishermans Bend (CRCWSC, 2020).
These strategies emphasise a hybrid drainage approach through a
combination of green swales, parks and existing underground drains, as
well as urban ecological design through green corridors, public open
space and building design. Many of these water sensitive solutions have
been embedded in the Fishermans Bend Framework, a long-term stra­
tegic plan for development that is given legal effect through a suite of
planning controls in the Port Phillip and Melbourne Planning Schemes.
3. A framework for designing collaborative governance
Synthesising the literature and empirical data, we identified four
building blocks—related to both agency and institutional practices—to
guide the design of collaborative governance in any given context. These
include (see also Fig. 6):
1 The ‘why’: Why collaborate? What are the drivers of collaboration?
What benefits can be achieved through collaboration?
2 The ‘what’: What is the context within which the collaboration will
happen? What are the enablers of collaboration? What are the
barriers?
3 The ‘who’: Who should participate in the collaboration? What role
should they play?
4 The ‘how’: What level of collaboration is appropriate for facilitating
intended outcomes? What is an appropriate structure? What strate­
gies can be employed to steer the process towards success?
Understanding and articulating the ‘why’ helps with identifying the
drivers that can motivate, initiate, and (to some extent) sustain collab­
orative efforts. The ‘what’ helps with analysing the context in which we
are operating, and the enablers and barriers we face. The ‘who’ and
‘how’ assist with shaping collaboration dynamics. The dynamics need to
be designed with the intended impacts in mind, as different configura­
tions of collaborations could lead to different levels of impact.
In thinking about the level of impact, we may consider the baseline to
be the business-as-usual servicing, and conventional infrastructure de­
livery. For urban water planning, this would involve the pipe and pump
network, buried under the ground, and utilising conventional sources of
water (e.g. dams, groundwater). Collaborative governance in the case of
NBS starts when we intend to deliver impacts beyond the business-as-
usual, such as urban greening or climate change resilience (Frantze­
skaki et al., 2014). From there, three levels of impact can be envisaged
(see also Fig. 7):
I Tactical impact: This is about discrete, placed-based impact at
the level of individual projects (Lawrence et al., 2015; Stoker
et al., 2018; Wittmayer et al., 2018). In delivering tactical impact,
we are going beyond business-as-usual servicing, but only within
a specific project or context, rather than at the sectoral or system
level (e.g. entire city). In the case of WSUD, this means rolling out
NBS infrastructure and processes, such as rain gardens, swales,
etc. in a development project, such as the Currumbin Eco-Village,
without changing water servicing and infrastructure delivery in
other parts of the jurisdiction. In that case, alternative planning
approvals or implementation arrangements may be established to
facilitate individual innovative projects, without necessarily
changing broader institutional processes and structures.
II Strategic impact: This is about impact at the program/sub-
system level, with the potential to influence servicing and infra­
structure delivery at a larger systemic level (Ferguson et al.,
2013; Malekpour et al., 2017; Wittmayer et al., 2018). An
example is the Fishermans Bend redevelopment program, which,
if successful, could influence the way urban renewal is carried out
in Melbourne, and beyond. This level of impact may be delivered
through different strategic planning approaches, particularly at
S. Malekpour et al. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177

Fig. 6. Considerations in the design process for collaborative governance.

Fig. 7. Levels of impact that can be delivered through collaborative governance between urban and infrastructure sectors. Images on the right-hand side, top to
bottom credits to: The Greater Sydney Commission, Victoria Planning Authority, CRC for Water Sensitive Cities.

the corridor or precinct scales (e.g. master plans, precinct struc­
ture plans), that facilitate or mandate the adoption and imple­
mentation of NBS. Alternatively, strategic impact may be
effectively realised through a concerted approach to delivering
multiple projects at the local level.
III Transformational impact: This is about sectoral or system level
change. Delivering transformational impact is about fundamen­
tally changing the way infrastructure delivery and urban
servicing is planned and implemented (Linnenluecke et al., 2017;
Rijke et al., 2013). In the case of WSUD in Australia, we are yet to
see this level of impact fully realised, but historical examples of
transformational impact exist, for example in the large-scale roll
out of sewerage systems in Australian cities in the last century.
Transformational impact is delivered when policies and planning
instruments at a high level (e.g. state, regional) are altered to
enable the uptake of NBS. This needs to be accompanied by
significant changes in governance arrangements, organisational
capacity and cultures, and decision-making processes at different
levels of implementation, to ensure NBS aspirations are realised
on the ground.
The intended level of impact from a collaborative governance pro­
cess to deliver NBS needs to be scoped upfront, as different configura­
tions of why, what, who and how could lead to different levels of impact.
For example, delivering tactical impact may require engaging with a
small group of actors, while delivering transformative impact would
require ongoing engagement with a larger and more diverse group of
actors.
In the rest of this section, we will explain how to design the different
building blocks of collaborative governance.

6
S. Malekpour et al.
3.1. ‘Why’ collaborate
Cross-sectoral collaborations are often time consuming and resource
intensive (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2019), so it is important to clearly
articulate ‘why’ collaboration is needed. Without a strong rationale for
collaborative governance, it would be difficult to maintain momentum
in the longer term. Establishing the rationale involves identifying the
drivers of collaborations, as well as articulating the benefits of
collaborations.
3.1.1. Drivers of collaboration
In conventional infrastructure delivery, there is often coordination
between organisations. People and organisations working in different
sectors interact with each other through standardised processes and
routine guidelines, with no intention to seek radically innovative out­
comes, or to depart substantially from business-as-usual (BAU) infra­
structure options. In urban development projects in Australia, for
instance, there is often a standardised level of coordination between
urban planners and water utilities that is triggered through procedural
regulations. In normal circumstances, this coordination does not lead to
significant cross-agency collaborations.
For cross-sectoral collaboration to initiate, at least one of the three
drivers listed below should be present:
Necessity: A necessity-driven collaboration happens when BAU
infrastructure solutions are not viable, or are too expensive to imple­
ment. In Brabham, for example, physical site conditions including high
groundwater tables meant that conventional infrastructure solutions are
costly and cannot provide sufficient water for open space irrigation.
There was a necessity to consider alternative options, minimise the
importation of fill, make room for water in the urban landscape and
better use local water resources. This necessity drove the land owner,
developer and other stakeholders to initiate and work through a
collaborative process to address those development challenges.
Necessity-driven collaborations are more likely to deliver tactical
impact, with a focus on a particular project and a specific context.
However, if the necessity is strongly realised at a larger scale (e.g. the
necessity for climate change resilience in a city as a result of a major
natural disaster), it could drive transformational change at the system
level (Novalia and Malekpour, 2020).
Innovation: An innovation-driven collaboration happens when one
or a few actors pursue an innovation agenda that requires them to depart
from the BAU, advocate for alternative solutions, and engage other ac­
tors to set up collaborative efforts and deliver innovative outcomes. An
example of this is the Currumbin Ecovillage. An ambitious developer,
who was striving to showcase an exemplar development project and
differentiate itself in the business landscape, seized the opportunity and
worked with the council and other actors in a collaborative process to
deliver nature-based WSUD solutions instead of conventional water
infrastructure.
Innovation-driven collaborations often involve leaders who are
willing to absorb the transaction costs of initiating collaborations (Ansell
and Gash, 2008). They may be members of one of the organisations
involved, or be a part of a trusted boundary spanning organisation that
works towards stimulating informal spaces of interactions, bridging
capacities and creating conditions for building trust (Edelenbos and van
Meerkerk, 2015). Depending on where in the system those actors are
positioned, and their level of influence on other parts of the system,
agenda-driven collaborations could deliver different levels of impact,
from tactical project level, to transformational system level.
Vision: A vision-driven collaboration takes place when proponents
have a vision for greater outcomes (e.g. amenity, urban greening) that
require alternative solutions, and bring other actors into a collaborative
process to realise that vision. Vision-driven collaborations might happen
in large iconic projects with high visibility, such Fishermans Bend. In
Fishermans Bend, the water utility and the state government sought
transformative outcomes for the area located in the heart of Melbourne,
7
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
in line with the city’s status as one of the most liveable cities in the
world. Vision-driven collaborations do not always need to happen in
large iconic projects though. This type of collaboration could also arise
from the bottom up, e.g. community groups are able to mobilise efforts
in line with their aspiration for a place. Vision-driven collaborations
could also happen when large systemic changes are needed to deal with
a landscape pressure (e.g. climate change) or a ‘wicked problem’
(Frantzeskaki et al., 2014). In that case, actors would need to engage in
concerted and sustained efforts to achieve the desired outcomes.
It is worth emphasising that in any given context, more than one
driver for collaboration can co-exist. Also, the drivers of collaboration
may change and evolve over time. For example, collaborations may
emerge out of necessity, but subsequently, a vision is co-created with
multiple stakeholders to drive further collaboration in the later stages of
the project. This is what happened in Fishermans Bend, where initial
discussions were necessity-driven, focused on resolving technical chal­
lenges imposed by physical site conditions (e.g. low lying, flood prone
land), but then a vision was shaped around the development, to turn it
into a blueprint for urban renewal, in a city with a global liveability
status.
3.1.2. Benefits of collaboration
The other part of establishing the rationale for collaborative gover­
nance is clarifying and articulating the benefits to be gained from col­
laborations. The benefits are those outcomes that wouldn’t be achieved
in the absence of substantial cross-sectoral engagements. The literature
has sometimes referred to this as the collaborative advantage (Huxham
and Vangen, 2013).
In thinking about the benefits of collaboration, or the collaborative
advantage, Frantzeskaki and her colleagues suggest considering two
roles for cross-sectoral engagements: an action-oriented role, and, a
process-oriented role (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014). The action-oriented
role is focused on the direct product of collaborations—in this case,
delivering NBS, or resolving an implementation challenge. The
process-oriented role considers broader capacities and synergies devel­
oped through collaborations. These could be individual and social (e.g.
systems thinking, building trust), governance and institutional (e.g.
policy integration, implementation coordination), or resource synergies
and capacities (e.g. sharing expertise, skills and funding, creating a
multiplier effect) (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014; Gulsrud et al., 2018;
Kabisch et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2017).
3.2. ‘What’ to consider
Collaborative governance takes place within a multi-faceted bio-
physical, socio-economic, institutional, and political context (Emerson
et al., 2012). Planning, design and operation of urban infrastructure
across different scales requires a systems perspective, and an under­
standing of systems dynamics, i.e. how different sub-systems interact
with each other to create urban processes and outcomes (McPhearson
et al., 2016). A key part of setting up collaborative governance is
therefore to reflect on the existing context and systems dynamics, and
identify those conditions that can enable and facilitate, or impede and
constrain collaborations.
Drawing on the literature (e.g. Ansell and Gash, 2008; Dorst et al.,
2019; Emerson et al., 2012; Kabisch et al., 2016; Thomson and Perry,
2006), as well as our empirical data from four Australian cases, we have
listed some of the enablers of collaborative governance across social,
economic, and technological dimensions in Table 1. The lack of any of
the enablers could present a constraint to collaborative governance.
Other barriers, based on the literature (e.g. Ansell and Gash, 2008;
Ferreira et al., 2020; Kabisch et al., 2016), as well as our empirical data
have been listed in Table 2.
It is worth mentioning that the lists in Tables 1 and 2 are by no means
exhaustive. However, they highlight some of the issues and dynamics in
the broader context, within which collaborative governance is to be
S. Malekpour et al.
Table 1
Examples of the enablers of collaborative governance.
Enabler
Top-down directive (e.g. enabling policy),
as well as bottom-up demand (e.g.
community expectations) for innovative
solutions that require greater
collaborations
Greater understanding and transparency
around costs and benefits of BAU
solutions in the long term (e.g. what
would be the costs of conventional
water systems under extreme climate
change scenarios?)
An appreciation of net-positive trade-offs
and best-value outcomes for the
community among decision makers
Pre-existing demonstration projects and
successful collaborations that provide a
proof of concept for the effectiveness of
collaborations
The culture of experimentation and
innovation within the organisations
involved in planning and
implementation.
Example quotes from empirical data
“I don’t believe the organisations would
have contributed supporting the
collaborative process without the CEOs
endorsement to achieving the integrated
water management indicators identified
out of the [state government] forums.” –
participant in Upper Merri
“We see private buildings putting in 3rd
pipe systems. … There’s a large customer
desire for that and we’re not meeting it….
if we’re truly customer driven
organisations, maybe we actually need to
engage with the urban planning, the
community, about what actually is the
diversity of service that they’re actually
looking for.” – participant in
Fishermans Bend
“The economics assessment will hopefully
provide a more holistic assessment of the
economic benefits of the alternate water
supply and the provision of more green
and blue infrastructure. I think
understanding this benefit could go a long
way to changing Local Government
Authorities view of additional
maintenance costs versus long term
benefit.” – participant in Brabham
“I would argue that there’s actually a
long-term efficiency [if we work together
to do things differently] … We’ve spent
100 years building a system that is really
simple. We take water from the
mountains, we pipe it through to the
customer… They then dirty it up, and we
drain it away and treat it, and it’s a really
simple system. But as we go further and
further away to get more water resource,
it gets more and more expensive, and also
that network gets bigger and bigger… This
is the concept of avoided cost. And
understanding that broader context, and
it’s not the short-term avoidable cost, it’s
the long term.” – participant in
Fishermans Bend
“We need to get out of the thinking of “I
only think about the cost and operational
costs of my business” and actually think
about what’s the best community cost
solution… So you need to recognise the
benefits as well, the broader benefits that
it delivers, not just focused on the cost.
Otherwise we’d never build parks, because
parks costs things, what’s the benefit they
give you, quantify it for me?” –
participant in Fishermans Bend
“I think the collaborative process that
we’ve been a part of has sort of insulated
us from getting picked off by developers,
that sort of divide and conquer approach
is a bit less possible now because we’ve
managed to build a common
understanding between all of the agencies
as to what we’re trying to achieve here
and the reasons it’s necessary” –
participant in Brabham
“So the idea of change is really fraught,
it’s scary. You can’t be wrong for doing
the same thing you’ve always done. So,
there needs to be an environment that
encourages change” – participant in
Currumbin Ecovillage
8
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
Table 2
Examples of the barriers of collaborative governance.
Barrier Example quotes from empirical data
Narrow key performance indicators “We need to get outside of your own
(KPIs) for organisations involved, with paradigm of “your business”. So if I do a
a focus on efficiency and business case, traditionally, I’ll look at
monofunctional service delivery, rather what’s the cost to [my organisation], and
than delivering best-value solutions for what’s the cost to my customer. And under
the community that solution, it tends to drive you to the
conventional solution, because you’ve
already got a whole bunch of sunk assets,
which you assume are valued at zero. And
you don’t actually value the enabling of
green, or what the customer may want… If
you run on just [own organisation]
balance sheet, you’ll come out with
perverse answers; you’ll come out with a
simplistic answer.” – participant in
Fishermans Bend
The narrow scope of economic “We have a huge role that we don’t fulfil.
regulations and organisational charters, Whilst in our legislative framework, it’s
which do not encourage innovative difficult, because we don’t really have the
solutions and collaborative control or the power, but we’re the only
arrangements agency that’s responsible for that kind of
thing … It’s difficult unless you’ve got
someone with the money to really try it out
first, with their own risk and cost, to then
implement it as their own. That’s
something the government should be
doing.” – participant in Brabham
Narrowly interpreted remits and “So the idea of a win-win is fraught from
responsibilities that reinforce sectoral the beginning, but it’s something that really
silos needs to be much more strongly considered
because at the end of the day, what the
developers are doing is building things that
the community one way or the other is
going to buy and use. And they’re either
going to buy it through as public land,
public infrastructure, through their fees
and charges, rates and taxes.” –
participant in Currumbin Ecovillage
The high transaction costs of “We all wanted to do this collaborative
collaborative processes process, but we were struggling for proper
coordination and governance to be
established … We were all doing this on the
side and none of us had the time to commit
to this.” – participant in Upper Merri
Pre-existing histories of tension, conflict “Background work on this catchment in
or failed collaborative efforts. 2014 … It all got shelved and never heard
about it again… We did all this work and
spent all this time, and it didn’t go
anywhere. So why get involved again?” –
participant in Upper Merri
designed, emphasising the need to understand and reflect on conditions
that can enable or hinder the setting up, and the ongoing success of,
collaborative governance.
3.3. ‘Who’ needs to be involved
An important step in setting up collaborative governance is to
identify who should participate in the collaborative process. A partici­
pant may be a person, an organisation, or a group of persons and or­
ganisations (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016). They may represent
themselves, a public agency, a business, an NGO, a community, or the
public at large (Emerson et al., 2012). They bring with them their own
individual values, attitudes, backgrounds, experiences, knowledge and
interests, as well as missions, mandates, and stakes of the entities they
represent (Beierle and Cayford, 2002).
Participants have been referred to as members, stakeholders, part­
ners, or collaborators in the collaborative governance literature
(Emerson et al., 2012). In the context of establishing the ‘who’ in the
S. Malekpour et al.
process of setting up collaborative governance, we choose to refer to
them as stakeholders. ‘Members’ is generic and vague, and ‘collabora­
tors’ or ‘partners’ refers to the role the participants may create or adopt
to exercise collaborative governance (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014). A
stakeholder, on the other hand, is a person or an organisation that is
affected by decisions/actions/outcomes of the collaborative process,
and/or can exercise agency to influence them (Reed et al., 2009),
regardless of the role they get to play in the collaboration process. In
other words, setting up collaborative governance starts with identifying
stakeholders (ex-ante), who might then go on to take up the role of
partners or collaborators (ex-post).
Identifying stakeholders is an iterative process, and there are various
methods for doing that (de Vicente, 2016; Reed et al., 2009). Discussing
them is beyond the scope of this paper; however, it is critical to consider
the intended level of impact (Fig. 7) in identifying the relevant stake­
holders. For example, delivering tactical impact at the local scale might
involve a limited set of stakeholders, whereas delivering transformative
impact at a larger scale might require involving a larger number –
and/or a different set – of stakeholders.
Once identified, stakeholders can be categorised in different ways to
think about strategies to engage them and the roles they might play in
the collaboration process. Our empirical data collected from a wide
range of practitioners in Australia suggest that one useful way of cate­
gorising stakeholders is based on their 1) influence on the collaborations
process, other stakeholders, and/or the outcomes, 2) interest in the
collaborative process and/or the outputs. Other scholars have used
similar factors in mapping stakeholders (see for example, Reed et al.,
2009).
Influence is determined by the direct decision making power, and/or
the ability and resources to engage proactively and affect decisions. The
influence of different stakeholders should be considered in relation to
the intended level of impact from the collaborative process. For
example, state or national authorities may be better positioned than
local authorities to deliver strategic or transformative impact. Also, the
role of stakeholders should be considered recognising that the successful
delivery of NBS requires engagement with policy/strategy stakeholders
as well as implementers.
Interest of different stakeholders should be identified both in relation
to the collaborative process, as well as its deliverables. For example, a
state authority might be particularly interested in driving collaborations
Fig. 8. An example of categorising participants in collaborative governance (a heuristic tool).
9
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
among different organisations in the sector it regulates, and therefore
will have an interest in the collaborative process. On the other hand, a
community group might have an interest in particular infrastructure
solutions being implemented in their neighbourhood.
From this, a simple heuristic matrix can be developed (Fig. 8), with
influence and interest on two axes. Different stakeholders can be posi­
tioned in different sections of the matrix – acknowledging that the
positioning might not be precise and that there might be overlaps be­
tween different sections. This positioning is only to serve a heuristic
purpose; to assist with identifying strategies to work with different
stakeholders (as presented in each quadrant and explained further
below).
Stakeholders with high influence and high interest in collaborative
efforts or its deliverables should be appropriately positioned to partner
and lead the process. They could leverage resources, expertise, and
existing processes – or develop new ones – to achieve a critical mass that
can drive the collaboration. Collaborations could be government-led,
industry-led, business-led, citizen-led, or a mix of these, particularly
when visions, objectives and interests of all parties align (van Ham and
Klimmek, 2017). An example of a business-led collaboration is the
Currumbin Ecovillage development, where the developer initiated and
led the collaborative efforts, leveraged input from the community and
aligned community desires with business interests to deliver the project.
In Brabham, the developer and land owner, and the Department of
Communities (state government), initiated the collaboration and
engaged the CRCWSC as an independent partner to lead collaborative
efforts in relation to Brabham.
Stakeholders with low influence, but high interest can be identified
as partners and empowered to play a strong role in driving collaborative
governance, for example, through advocacy and influencing other
stakeholders. Often, those with more resources have the ability to
engage more proactively and shape the nature and direction of the
process and its outcomes. The aim should be to find creative ways of
empowering under resourced stakeholders, to ensure their equitable
participation in the collaborative process. In the Upper Merri project, for
instance, Traditional Owner groups were positioned as equal partners in
the collaboration, and their interests and inputs were actively sought to
guide decision making. For example, in identifying water servicing op­
tions, natural and cultural heritage assessments were a key element in
decision making. Without such a positioning, indigenous voices might
S. Malekpour et al.
have remained marginalised and their interests might have been over­
looked in the collaborative process.
Stakeholders in the low influence and low interest category can be
informed and consulted. Regular communications to keep these stake­
holders apprised of project developments, and invitations to participate
in select activities (e.g. plan reviews) may be appropriate engagement
strategies for such stakeholders.
Stakeholders in the high influence, low interest category could be
motivated and encouraged to participate in collaborative efforts. This
would involve identifying their goals and interests, and fostering actions
or outcomes through the collaboration process that align with those
goals (Scott and Thomas, 2017). For example, In the Upper Merri proj­
ect, the state planning authority was invited to participate in the project.
Increasing recognition of the influence they hold over growth outcomes
in the sub-catchment eventually led to their participation as a partner in
the collaboration. This highlights that stakeholder categorisations are
not static, with some stakeholders able to ‘move’ across the quadrants as
the collaboration proceeds and existing roles break down, and/or new
roles are adopted or created (Wittmayer et al., 2017). Explicit strategies
might also be put in place to purposefully move stakeholders across the
quadrants.
3.4. ‘How’ to collaborate
The final stage in designing collaborative governance is to shape
collaboration structures, and to consider collaboration management
processes and strategies that facilitate the functioning of collaboration
structures.
3.4.1. Collaboration structures
The literature on collaborative governance identifies different types
of collaborative structures (McGuire, 2006), such as a working group,
taskforce, coalition, etc. Different structures suit different contexts, and
represent a different level of cross-agency integration, i.e. low to high
(Ulibarri and Scott, 2017). Grounded in this scholarly knowledge, we
worked with practitioners in Australia to co-create a conceptualisation
of the different levels of collaboration (Fig. 9), which can guide the
structuring of collaborations. The different levels are ideal-typical, and
in reality, a collaboration might not always neatly fit into these levels.
They can assist in diagnosing an existing structure (if one exists), as well
as shaping a structure to facilitate the intended level of impact. Also, a
collaboration might evolve over time, beginning at one level and
Fig. 9. Different Levels of Collaboration.
10
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
developing into a structure that represents a higher level of collabora­
tion. Fishermans Bend provides one such example. The collaboration,
originally spearheaded by a water utility with an interest in a particular
precinct, grew to become a coordinated multi-stakeholder forum
focused on the much larger renewal area. The collaboration was for­
malised after the declaration of the renewal area in 2012, and temporary
structures have become increasingly complex and layered since then.
The levels of collaboration may include:
Level 1: Coordination. At this lowest level of collaboration, in­
dividuals and organisations adhere to minimum compliance standards
for cross-agency coordination. They act almost independently, and
stakeholder engagement is limited to intermittent activities when
required. This level of collaboration is evident in conventional servicing
(e.g. urban water servicing) when the context does not pose a specific
challenge that requires cross-agency collaborations, there is no inno­
vation agenda and the intended level of impact does not go beyond
business-as-usual service delivery.
Level 2: Informal Connections. At this level, individuals connect
informally, typically through professional networks and working re­
lationships, and collaborate in a limited manner (e.g. share informa­
tion). Collaborations do not extend to their respective organisations or
the stakeholder groups they represent. While informal connections build
momentum for moving to higher levels of collaboration and delivering
impact beyond business-as-usual, they are unlikely to lead to such
impact on their own.
Level 3: Coordinated Forums. At this level, individuals or organi­
sations coordinate through collaborative forums or networks where
ideas are discussed and knowledge is shared in relation to a specific topic
or a range of related topics (e.g. on the planning, delivery and operation
of WSUD infrastructure). The forums could be established solely for
knowledge sharing and exploratory discussions (Informational Net­
works), or they might also involve education, training and capacity
building activities (Developmental Networks) (Agranoff, 2007). Unlike
informal connections, these interactions are characterised by greater
regularity, transparency and structure. However, at this level, resource
sharing and explicit cross-agency integration does not take place. Many
communities of practice and industry networks fall within this level of
collaboration. The Brabham Action Learning Partnership is an example
of this level of collaboration, where different stakeholders including the
land owner and developer, the water regulator, and state and local
planning authorities established a forum, facilitated by an independent
research organisation (CRCWSC), to explore alternative water strategies
S. Malekpour et al.
for the development. The partnership led to an agreement on a planning
pathway to implement a non-potable water supply scheme for public
open space irrigation. This level of collaboration can be associated with
a tactical level of impact (Fig. 7) in a specific (local) context, but is able
to generate momentum for higher levels of collaboration, and poten­
tially deliver higher levels of impact.
Level 4: Temporary Structures. At this level, dedicated structures
are set up for cross-agency collaborations, on an ad-hoc or “as needed”
basis. Unlike coordinated forums, temporary structures have terms of
reference and are supported by resource commitments from different
stakeholder groups. These structures take the form of an Action Network
(Agranoff, 2004), where network-level strategies and actions are
formulated and delivered through the members. However, these struc­
tures are dismantled after a purpose has been accomplished. A taskforce
or a consortium working group is an example of this level of collabo­
ration. In the Upper Merri project, stakeholders led by the water utility
and the water authority formed a project steering committee with rep­
resentatives from the state and local governments and Traditional
Owners. They also established a working group to lead project activities
and assess placed-based water recycling and harvesting solutions. These
structures were established to develop a sub-catchment plan and are
likely to change once the plan is delivered. This level of collaboration
can be associated with a tactical/local level or a strategic/sub-system
level of impact (Fig. 7).
Level 5: Ongoing Structures. In this level, formal and ongoing
collaborative governance structures are set up with clearly defined roles
and responsibilities. These structures are typically mandated, such as a
newly created statutory authority, and become embedded in practice.
For example, the Victorian Planning Authority was established in 2006
to plan Melbourne’s growth corridors. It operates as a boundary-
spanning structure to coordinate the (mostly) greenfield planning ac­
tivities of local governments, infrastructure providers, and developers,
to ensure housing and infrastructure delivery is appropriately sequenced
so that new residents have access to necessary facilities and services as
they move in.
3.4.2. Collaboration management processes and strategies
Those setting up a collaboration, particularly higher order collabo­
ration structures, need to clearly specify and agree on key aspects of the
role and function of the collaboration. This may involve formal or
informal agreements on: the nature and scope of the problem to be
addressed, objectives and intended outcomes, membership, roles and
responsibilities, resource commitments, format and frequency of in­
teractions, decision making rules (e.g. consensus or majority voting),
and data access and information sharing protocols. There was an over­
whelming consensus among the practitioners interviewed for this study
that these agreements need to be established from the outset of the
collaboration, to ensure they function effectively. Informal agreements
often allow for flexibility and rapid adaptation as conditions change, but
may lack the required accountabilities (Huxham and Vangen, 2013).
This could result in members making minimal contributions, or pulling
out of the collaboration because of other priorities. On the other hand,
formal agreements improve accountability and stability throughout the
process, but could create lock-in if they are difficult to alter when cir­
cumstances change.
For long-term collaboration structures set up to support strategic
planning activities, different structures could be used for different
stages. For example, informal, open and fluid collaboration structures
may be appropriate during the strategy formulation stage, while formal
structures with clear roles and responsibilities may be required during
the implementation stage.
Irrespective of the chosen structure, ensuring the collaboration
‘succeeds’ requires ongoing strategies to effectively manage collabora­
tion dynamics. Some key ingredients are listed below, in no particular
order:
11
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
• Provide clear incentives to participate (Ansell and Gash, 2008)
• Establish shared understandings of the collaboration purpose,
problems to be addressed, and potential solutions (Malekpour et al.,
2017)
• Invest in building trust and relational capacity during the early
phases of the collaboration (Edelenbos and van Meerkerk, 2015)
• Explicitly acknowledge and address (pre-existing) tensions and
conflicts (Klijn et al., 2010)
• Undertake iterative and collective analyses of potential solutions
through developing and interim drafts and providing opportunities
for interim feedback and debate
• Engender ownership of collaboration outcomes by requiring stake­
holders to commit resources to the process (Ansell and Gash, 2008)
• Facilitate distributed leadership to maximise the reach of the col­
laboration’s influence across participating organisations (Barrutia
and Echebarria, 2019)
• Establish clear accountabilities and reporting systems to track
progress (Frantzeskaki et al., 2014)
• Support the generation of ‘small wins’ to build and sustain mo­
mentum for collaboration (Ansell and Gash, 2008)
• Embed flexibility into collaborative arrangements, to ensure goals,
activities and metrics can adapt in response to changing conditions
or new information (Rijke et al., 2013).
4. Conclusions
As we grow and renew our cities and urban infrastructure, NBS offer
an opportunity to provide basic services, together with broader com­
munity and environmental benefits. However, what seems like a great
idea in principle, has proved to be difficult to realise in practice. Among
many challenges to overcome (Kabisch et al., 2017), there needs to be
greater integration and collaboration between individuals and organi­
sations working across different phases of planning implementation, and
operation of NBS, as well as different spatial scales (e.g. metropolitan
scale, corridor scale, precinct scale, local scale).
While collaborations do take place and deliver useful outcomes, they
are often set up on an ad hoc basis and in an opportunistic way (Stoker
et al., 2018). Our empirical data suggests that when collaborations are
not designed upfront, there is often a mismatch between the intended
level of impact and the actual outcomes. For example, a collaboration
process might have the ambitions of a strategic or transformational
impact; but, because of limited planning and poor upfront design, it
might fail to clearly articulate the outcomes (the ‘why’), assess the
operating environment/context and diagnose the opportunities and
threats (the ‘what’), engage with the right actors at the required level of
influence (the ‘who’), and set up the required structures and process (the
‘how’) for delivering the intended level of impact.
The framework put forward in this study aims to make collaboration
design an explicit and an upfront consideration for its initiators. It
provides an overarching diagnostic and series of design principles for
setting up cross-sectoral collaborations. While by no means exhaustive,
it does highlight some of the key issues that need to be carefully
considered to avoid ad-hoc processes that fail to deliver desired out­
comes. While we used empirical data from Australian case studies, the
principles and concepts we define are grounded in the broader literature
on collaborative governance and NBS, and therefore have universal
relevance. The elements of the framework are presented as high-level
considerations rather than prescriptive steps, so that they can be
adapted to different development, planning and institutional contexts.
While collaborations can aim for high levels of integration between
actors to achieve a transformational impact, mainstreaming collabora­
tions may require explicit experimentation with governance structures
and processes at different scales and different levels of impact (Dober­
stein, 2016). Some state governments in Australia have recently recog­
nised this need, and have experimented with new structures, such as
New South Wales’ Greater Sydney Commission, and Victoria’s
S. Malekpour et al.
Integrated Water Management Forums. The latter is unique in that it
brings together different organisations responsible for managing
different elements of the water cycle to identify, prioritise and oversee
the implementation of collaborative water opportunities, many of which
are natured-based (Productivity Commission, 2020).
Setting up such experimental forums has been a significant step to­
wards improving collaborative governance for infrastructure delivery in
Australia. Nevertheless, it is crucial to systematically record lessons
learnt from those experiments, and synthesise those lessons into design
guidelines for collaborative governance. Further, there needs to be a
pathway for moving from experimental forums towards ongoing
collaborative structures where needed. This can often be achieved
through explicit policy design and major institutional reform programs.
Author statement
Shirin Malekpour: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Analysis,
Writing – Original Draft. Sylvia Tawfik: Conceptualisation, Methodol­
ogy, Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing. Chris
Chesterfield: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Analysis, Writing – Re­
view & Editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the support of the Commonwealth of Australia
through the Cooperative Research Centre Programme which provided
funding for this project.
References
Agranoff, R., 2004. Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working Across
Organizations. IBM Endowment for the Business of Government, Washington DC.
Agranoff, R., 2007. Managing Within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations.
Georegtown University Press, Washington DC.
Ansell, C., Gash, A., 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public
Adm. Res. Theory 18 (4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M., 2016. Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions:
a multi-actor perspective. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (5), 628–649. https://doi.org/
10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.
Barrutia, J.M., Echebarria, C., 2019. Drivers of exploitative and explorative innovation in
a collaborative public-sector context. Public Manag. Rev. 21 (3), 446–472. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1500630.
Bartlett, R., 2019. Visioning Futures: Improving Infrastructure Planning to Harness
Nature’s Benefits in a Warming World. Washington DC.
Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions. RFF Press.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Middleton Stone, M., 2015. Designing and implementing
cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Adm. Rev. 75 (5),
647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432.
CRCWSC, 2015. Ideas for Fishermans Bend. Cooperative Research Centre for Water
Sensitive Cities., Melbourne.
CRCWSC, 2018. Ideas for Brabham. Retrieved from. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.
aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12440614&site=ehost-live.
CRCWSC, 2020. Collaborative Planning for the Fishermans Bend Urban Redevelopment.
Melbourne.
de Vicente, J., 2016. In: Matti, C. (Ed.), Visual Toolbox for System Innovation. Climate-
KIC, Brussels.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al., 2015. The
IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. 14, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
Doberstein, C., 2016. Designing collaborative governance decision-making in search of a
‘collaborative advantage’. Public Manag. Rev. 18 (6), 819–841. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019.
Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Raven, R., Runhaar, H., 2019. Urban greening through nature-
based solutions – key characteristics of an emerging concept. Sustain. Cities Soc. 49
(May), 101620 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101620.
Edelenbos, J., van Meerkerk, I., 2015. Connective capacity in water governance
practices: the meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance.
12
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2014.08.009.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S., 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative
governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 22 (1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jopart/mur011.
Ferguson, B.C., Frantzeskaki, N., Brown, R.R., 2013. A strategic program for transitioning
to a Water Sensitive City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 117, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2013.04.016.
Ferreira, V., Barreira, A.P., Loures, L., Antunes, D., Panagopoulos, T., 2020.
Stakeholders’ engagement on nature-based solutions: a systematic literature review.
Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020640.
Foundry, 2019. Upper Merri Creek Sub-Catchment: Issues Paper. Retrieved from. https
://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.mw-yoursay.files/98
15/7066/5422/UMC_issues_paper_final_final_Oct.pdf.
Frantzeskaki, N., 2019. Seven lessons for planning nature-based solutions in cities.
Environ. Sci. Policy 93 (October 2018), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2018.12.033.
Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., Loorbach, D., 2014. The role of partnerships in
“realising” urban sustainability in Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, the Netherlands.
J. Clean. Prod. 65, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023.
Frantzeskaki, N., Borgström, S., Gorissen, L., Egermann, M., Ehnert, F., 2017. Nature-
based solutions accelerating urban sustainability transitions in cities: lessons from
Dresden, Genk and Stockholm cities. In: Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A.
(Eds.), Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas:
Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice, pp. 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-56091-5_5.
Gulsrud, N.M., Hertzog, K., Shears, I., 2018. Innovative urban forestry governance in
Melbourne?: investigating “green placemaking” as a nature-based solution. Environ.
Res. 161 (December 2016), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2017.11.005.
Huxham, C., Vangen, S., 2013. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Advantage. Routledge.
Kabisch, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Pauleit, S., Naumann, S., Davis, M., Artmann, M.,
Haase, D., Knapp, S., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Zaunberger, K., Bonn, A., 2016. Nature-
based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas:
perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action.
Ecol. Soc. 21 (2) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08373-210239.
Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A., 2017. Nature-Based Solutions to Climate
Change Adaptation in Urban Areas: Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56091-5.
Klijn, E.H., Steijn, B., Edelenbos, J., 2010. The impact of network management on
outcomes in governance networks. Public Adm. 88 (4), 1063–1082. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x.
Lawrence, J., Sullivan, F., Lash, A., Ide, G., Cameron, C., McGlinchey, L., 2015. Adapting
to changing climate risk by local government in New Zealand: institutional practice
barriers and enablers. Local Environ. 20 (3 PG-298–320), 298–320. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13549839.2013.839643.
Linnenluecke, M.K., Verreynne, M., De Villiers, M.J., Venter, C., 2017. A review of
collaborative planning approaches for transformative change towards a sustainable
future. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3212–3224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.10.148.
Malekpour, S., Brown, R.R., de Haan, F.J., Wong, T.H.F., 2017. Preparing for disruptions:
a diagnostic strategic planning intervention for sustianable development. Cities 63,
58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.016.
McGuire, M., 2006. Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how
we know it. Public Adm. Rev. 66 (December), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/
4096568.
McPhearson, T., Pickett, S.T.A., Grimm, N.B., Niemelä, J., Alberti, M., Elmqvist, T., et al.,
2016. Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience 66 (3),
198–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002.
Nesshöver, C., Assmuth, T., Irvine, K.N., Rusch, G.M., Waylen, K.A., Delbaere, B., et al.,
2017. The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: an interdisciplinary
perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 1215–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.11.106.
Newig, J., Challies, E.D., Jager, N.W., Kochskaemper, E., Adzersen, A., 2018. The
environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a
framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Stud. J. 46 (2), 269–297. https://doi.org/
10.1111/psj.12209.
Novalia, W., Malekpour, S., 2020. Theorising the role of crisis for transformative
adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 112 (May), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.07.009.
Pickett, S.T.A., Boone, C.G., McGrath, B.P., Cadenasso, M.L., Childers, D.L., Ogden, La.,
et al., 2013. Ecological science and transformation to the sustainable city. Cities 32,
S10–S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.02.008.
Productivity Commission, 2020. Integrated Urban Water Management — Why a Good
Idea Seems Hard to Implement. Canberra.
Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., et al.,
2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based
solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Policy 77 (July), 15–24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008.
Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al., 2009.
Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource
management. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2009.01.001.
S. Malekpour et al.
Rijke, J., Farrelly, M., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., 2013. Configuring transformative
governance to enhance resilient urban water systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 25 (ii),
62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.09.012.
Scott, T.A., Thomas, C.W., 2017. Unpacking the collaborative toolbox: why and when do
public managers choose collaborative governance strategies? Policy Stud. J. 45 (1),
191–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12162.
Stoker, P., Pivo, G., Howe, C., Elmer, V., Stoicof, A., Kavkewitz, J., Grigg, N., 2018.
Joining-Up Urban Water Management with Urban Planning and Design.
Tanner, C.J., 2007. A case study for the Ecovillage at Currumbin – integrated water
management planning, design and construction. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 103,
33–41. https://doi.org/10.2495/WRM070041.
Tawfik, S., Shepherd, S., Smith, B., Chesterfield, C., 2020. Brabham Action Learning
Partnership: Case Report. Retrieved from. www.watersensitivecities.org.au.
The Ecovillage Blog. (n.d.). The Ecovillage at Currumbin – An international award
winning sustainable community. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from https://theecov
illage.com.au/about.
Thomson, A.M., Perry, J.L., 2006. Collaboration processes: inside the black Box. Public
Adm. Rev. (Special Issue), 20–32.
13
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 62 (2021) 127177
Ulibarri, N., Scott, T.A., 2017. Linking network structure to collaborative governance.
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 27 (1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/
muw041.
van Ham, C., Klimmek, H., 2017. Partnerships for nature-based solutions in urban areas -
showcasing successful examples. In: Kabisch, N., Korn, H., Stadler, J., Bonn, A.
(Eds.), Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Adaptation in Urban Areas:
Linkages between Science, Policy and Practice. Springer.
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., 2017. Actor roles in
transition: insights from sociological perspectives. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 24,
45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003.
Wittmayer, J., van Steenbergen, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Bach, M., 2018. Transition
management: guiding principles and applications. In: Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K.,
Bach, M., Avelino, F. (Eds.), Co-Creating Sustainable Urban Futures: A Primer on
Applying Transition Management in Cities. Springer, pp. 81–102.
Wong, T.H.F., 2006. Water sensitive urban design-the journey thus far. Aust. J. Water
Resour. 10 (3), 213–222.
Wong, T.H.F., Brown, R.R., 2009. The water sensitive city: principles for practice. Water
Sci. Technol. 60 (3), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.436.