The necessity for evidence-based and socially applicable knowledge in policy processes underscores the importance of the science, policy, and society interface. This interface is increasingly desired to obtain a holistic perspective by integrating sectoral and interdisciplinary knowledge to address complex socio-technical issues (Eberle et al., 2021). Living labs have emerged as promising vehicle fostering collaboration among diverse stakeholders from academia, public and private organizations, and civil society to drive innovative solutions. While living labs provide contextual understanding through real-life experiments and engage diverse stakeholders, they do not inherently enhance policy integration (Willems et al., 2023). To leverage the knowledge and resources from living labs to policymaking, learning from these environments must be scaled up or replicated to tackle similar challenges elsewhere. Consequently, living labs must showcase their impact through tangible results (innovations), enhance stakeholder capacities, and facilitate iterative learning for continual improvement. While there have been some efforts in scaling up and iterating outcomes as well as improving the impacts, understanding the occurrence of learning within living labs is often overlooked.

Thus, in this study, we analyse the learning dynamics in living labs, recognizing that attention to learning within co-creative environments can help realize the desired outcomes and impacts by exploring what is being learned, who is learning, and how learning occurs (Bhatta et al., 2023). To this end, we first developed a learning framework for living labs, identifying (i) types of learning as content-, capacity- and networking-related, (ii) levels of learning as individual-, group- and organization/societal-level, and (iii) processes of learning as intentional and incidental. Subsequently, we applied this framework to the KLIMAP project, which aimed to develop climate adaptive water and soil management pathways in Dutch sandy soil region. Our analysis uncovered several evidence of various learning types, levels and processes linked to the project’s outcomes. An indirect yet significant policy outcome of KLIMAP is the attention to water and soil management in Dutch policymaking through the water-bodem sturend framework. This outcome is attributed to years of research and numerous climate adaptation, land, and water management projects, including KLIMAP. Additionally, we formulated recommendations to enhance the impacts of the living labs as, ensuring inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, emphasizing effective communication among project stakeholders and with the wider public, providing accessible content through diverse mediums like audio-video, flyer and text, and acknowledging the time and labour-intensive nature of these interactions.@en

For many years now, various knowledge evidence has indicated that the Dutch land and water systems are reaching their limits. Thus, instead of manipulating the water and subsurface to achieve the desired functions, functions need to follow what the land and water system can offer. Consequently, in 2022, the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water forwarded an innovative and transitional approach of letting water and soil guide the policymaking, namely ‘water and soil guiding’. In this light, this research on progress paper aims to understand the cumulative role that living labs and similar projects existing before the policy guide had in the institutionalization of this policy guide. Further, ‘water and soil guiding’ is just at an initiation stage. This paper further tries to understand in what capacity can living labs support the operationalization, execution, and monitoring of this policy guide. In our preliminary finding, a direct link between the establishment of policy guide and the living labs existing before this establishment has not been formulated yet. However, indirect links such as delivering hard knowledge evidence, and formation and expansion of networks with relevant stakeholders has been recognized as indirect links.@en

Nature-based living labs combine the elements of nature-based solution design with a living lab context to address social and environmental resilience challenges. There is a need to deepen insights on the characteristics of the emergent phenomenon of nature-based living labs, with respect to their predecessors. Accordingly, the paper first develops an outline of how living labs evolved into nature-based living labs, informed by bibliometric analysis. Second, the unique characteristics of nature-based living labs are identified using a systematic literature review. Finally, the core characteristics of living labs are determined, and nature-based living labs are placed within this context. Initial living labs had a strong technological focus, which proliferated into diverse application domains and regions after the European Network of Living Labs was established and expanded. Urban living labs emerged as a significant multidisciplinary and geographically specific domain, while nature-based living labs are inherently sustainability-oriented and consider ecosystem processes, interactions, and natural materials. Next, the paper identifies nine characteristics of nature-based living labs, five of which are always present, namely: (i) real-life spatial context and multi-scale, (ii) innovation and learning, (iii) user-centric, (iv) multi-actor involvement and (v) sustainability-oriented multiple benefits. Then, the four core characteristics of living labs, the variation within these characteristics, and how these align with the characteristics of nature-based living labs are clarified. Finally, the need for research on living labs across application domains and regions is highlighted, so that the global applicability of these local, user-centric, innovative approaches can be established.

@en

Ports are increasingly ‘greening’ operations to protect their ‘license to operate’ by integrating social-environmental considerations into their management and reporting on their sustainability performance. In this research, we develop a novel method for port sustainability performance (PSP) assessment that combines science-based knowledge with place-based contextualisation. Specifically, we address a recognised challenge of combining global (‘top-down’) techno-scientifically oriented indicators with place-based locally relatable (‘bottom-up’) contexts in sustainability performance, in addition to addressing limitations encountered in empirical verification. First, a critical evaluation of the international literature on port sustainability assessments is undertaken to distil commonalities in global performance indicators, and to identify typical frames used in the design of sustainability performance indices. We apply this learning, together with place-based experiential knowledge, to develop a science-based framework for a Port Sustainability Performance (PSP) Index that is explicitly aligned with the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs). We then apply a co-design process to demonstrate local customisation of the index to derive place-based quantifiable measures and targets. Further, for easy-to-use empirical verification, a simple spreadsheet is applied to develop a flexible weighted scoring matrix. The matrix uses place-based rating systems for selected measures and associated targets, and aggregates allocated scores into informative outputs. Finally, the concept of Circles of Sustainability is adapted for ports to visually display sustainability performance, in alignment with related SDGs. This research contributes to bridging the science-practice divide in reporting on port sustainability performance.@en

Learning is an integral part of living lab activities and outcomes. This research in progress paper aims to understand the learning aspects in the collaborative activities and innovative outputs of living labs by developing an analytical learning framework for living labs and applying it to the case study of KLIMAP living labs in the Netherlands. The research adopts a mix of approaches, including qualitative document analysis, interviews and participation in brainstorming and knowledge sessions. The study develops a working analytical living labs learning framework. The preliminary findings of the framework in the KLIMAP living lab show different types of knowledge on content, capacity and network are intentionally or incidentally produced at different levels (individual, team, community) of a living lab.@en

Offshore wind farm development is a is a highly complex process. The societal and political pressure to implement is high while environmental responses and future developments in the global energy network are uncertain. Moreover, many interests in maritime space are at stake. The dependency on knowledge for decision-making is high, but the capacity to use knowledge is limited. In this paper we investigate the role of ecosystem knowledge in offshore wind farm planning and management. We have identified 4 types of research arenas: (1) government driven (e.g., monitoring programs) (2) subsidized research (national or EU), (3) industrial or PPS (Public-private partnerships), and (4) research by universities. This study considers the way in which knowledge from different arenas is or could be taken up and used in policy. We identify that particularly government-driven research (monitoring) is used in policymaking. The analysis of policy documents, in-depth expert interviews and focus groups reveals that the distance between knowledge developers and knowledge users may differentiate from purely transactional relations to co-production-relations. However, co-production is rare beyond the monitoring programs directly initiated by the government agencies.

@en

A large sandy peninsula and beach were realized in Dutch coastal waters in the Sand Engine pilot project. In addition to the benefits for flood protection, the Sand Engine generates multiple other societal values. It provides a new type of landscape of uncommon size along the Holland coast where nature, culture, history and the future come together. In this article we discuss the added value of the Sand Engine for culture and the arts, its iconic value and the development of knowledge in diverse sciences, most notably morphology, archaeology and palaeontology, as well as its educational function. We explore how different governance modes can influence how the added value is generated and what type of societal value arises. We distinguish four different governance modes related to the level of control exercised by authorities: directive, co-creational, facilitatory and observational. Different modes can co-exist and may change over time. For the Sand Engine we find that the knowledge development was highly directed, archaeology and palaeontology were facilitated, while an observational mode was employed towards arts and culture. The study leads to the inference that when the physical and societal space is created, societal value-added initiatives emerge.@en

The increasingly active role of stakeholders in the development of innovative nature-based solutions calls for appropriate instruments to support and realise added value from their involvement. In this paper we apply a newly developed instrument “Cooperation for Added Value” (Co-Add) to a study area on the Dutch coast. The instrument draws on participatory game theory and policy analysis to provide a theoretically sound structure for facilitating interactions aimed at identifying shared opportunities and potential coalitions for cooperation. The application in the case study Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks affirmed that the Co-Add instrument systematically facilitated stakeholders in exploring potentially promising opportunities and gaining insight in the added value of engaging in diverse cooperations. Stakeholders came to understand which solutions were more achievable than others and what was needed to enable implementation in terms of collaboration, including the role of their own organization. Furthermore, social dilemmas in which a particular nature-based solution is attractive to a coalition of stakeholders but is not the most beneficial solution for a particular individual stakeholder, became clear. This represents a practical contribution to the range of participatory instruments that can be applied in societally challenging complex problems that require collaboration for their resolution.@en

In 2012 the Dutch High-Water Protection Programme (HWPP) was initiated. This programme prioritised dike strengthening projects for the near future with a yearly budget of around 350 million Euros. A safety assessment 2011–2013 indicated the need to strengthen 748 km of dikes. To achieve this, it was recognised that generation and dissemination of state-of-the-art-knowledge was necessary. For this purpose, four Spatial and Technical Research Projects (STRPs) were initiated. The challenge for these STRPs is to generate and disseminate the developed knowledge that is relevant for other dike strengthening projects within the HWPP. This paper examines whether the STRPs have successfully undertaken activities to generate and disseminate new knowledge to relevant stakeholders. We examine how the generation and dissemination of knowledge from the STRPs to the HWPP-projects and water management organisations in the Netherlands took place and might be further facilitated.

@en

Rapid urbanization of the coast, growing global trade, stakeholder emancipation and ongoing depletion of natural resources mean that ports can no longer operate and develop without acknowledging and incorporating societal and environmental considerations. Drawing primarily on first-hand experiences in South African ports, supplemented with learning taken from international literature, this paper proposes a conceptual change in the position of the natural environment in port development from that of a ‘green handbrake’ to ‘equal partner’. The argument for this conceptual change is developed in three stages. First, we merge two concepts emerging from the literature, namely natural capital (or natural infrastructure) and infrastructure systems, to embed the natural environment as an integral component or ‘equal partner’ in port development. We then identify practical avenues through which the profile (or value) of the natural environment can be enhanced in port development, drawing on concepts such as Building with Nature (BwN) and multi-use of natural capital. Finally, we build a framework for Integrated Port Management (IPM) by conceptually positioning and aligning environmental processes within the traditional port development cycle, as well as identifying the need for coordination across and continuity between individual environmental assessment processes. In essence, bridging the disconnect between natural environmental issues and port development requires early consideration of the natural environment in port development, and an acknowledgement of multi-use benefits from natural capital. Further, in the operations and maintenance phases, environmental management systems in ports should not only focus on environmental performance, but also embrace multi-use valuation of the natural environment (ecosystem services) to give purpose to the need for environmental protection. However, crucial to effective implementation of an Integrated Port Management (IPM) framework will be its integration in organisational processes, supported by collaborative institutional structures. Only then will the environment take its place as equal partner in port development.

@en

Hydraulic engineering infrastructures, such as reservoirs, dikes, breakwaters, and inlet closures, have significantly impacted ecosystem functioning over the last two centuries. Currently, nature-based solutions are receiving increasing attention in hydraulic engineering projects and research programs. However, there is a lack of reflection on the concomitant, fundamental changes occurring in the field of hydraulic engineering, and coastal engineering in particular, and what this could mean for sustainability. In this article, we signal the shift from conventional to ecosystem-based hydraulic engineering design and characterize this in terms of four continua: (i) the degree of inclusion of ecological knowledge, (ii) the extent to which the full infrastructural lifecycle is addressed, (iii) the complexity of the actor arena taken into account, and (iv) the resulting form of the infrastructural artefact. We support our arguments with two carefully selected, iconic examples from the Netherlands and indicate how the stretching ideals of ecosystem-based engineering could engender further shifts towards sustainability.

@en

Nature-based flood defence is an innovative design alternative for achieving protection against flooding. Despite significant advancements in science, models and concepts, routine implementation beyond pilot projects remains limited. To better understand why, we have looked into the complexities of nature-based flood defence implementation and its resolutions, modelling decision-making situations using game theory in three nature-based flood defence cases: The Markermeer Dikes, the Afsluitdijk Dam and the Sand Engine. We observe that nature-based flood defence games are of a multi-level and nested nature. While the decision of whether to employ a nature-based flood defence is seemingly made at the project level, this can only happen when it is coherent with the institutional context that is determined at the policy level. A social dilemma is apparent: while a multi-functional nature-based solution is attractive to a coalition of actors, it is not the most beneficial option for individual actors. Hence, they are faced with the dilemma of opting for their maximum benefit or opting for the greater societal benefit which is less favorable to them. This social dilemma can be tackled by making ‘smart moves’, as inspired by the Sand Engine case. The nested nature of the problem requires structural change in the institutional context to enable favourable conditions for nature-based flood defence implementations.

@en

Deze Handreiking presenteert het participatief instrument Meerwaarde van Samenwerken dat binnen de kaders van het Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma (HWBP) is toegepast in het gebied Noard-Fryslân Bûtendyks in opdracht van de POV Waddenzeedijken. Het instrument is geschikt voor alle situaties waarin (meer) samenwerken gewenst is, binnen of buiten de wereld van waterveiligheid. Samenwerking succesvol vormgeven is niet vanzelfsprekend, het is vaak nieuw, soms eng en brengt risico’s met zich mee voor planning en budget. Tegelijkertijd is samenwerken tussen HWBP, Waterschappen en Rijkswaterstaat en andere partijen een juridische verplichting en vaak onontkoombaar. Samenwerken kan winst opleveren, denk aan ‘bouwen met natuur’ oplossingen die meerdere functies bedienen. Zoeken naar de mogelijke win-win oplossingen is tevens het uitgangspunt van Meerwaarde van Samenwerken: samenwerken gaat vooral werken als het alle partijen meer oplevert dan de huidige situatie. No regret dus en rekening houdend met de belangen van de partijen. De Handreiking Meerwaarde van Samenwerken geeft een praktische richting hoe het instrument te gebruiken aan de hand van een beschrijving van de voorbereiding en vijf processtappen (Figuur 0.1.1). Na een kennismaking brengen partijen de kansen voor samenwerken in beeld, waarna iedere partij deze waardeert. Op basis van de individuele waarderingen wordt de meerwaarde van samenwerken voor de groep bepaald en bekeken hoe de meerwaarde van samenwerken kan worden bereikt. In gesprek gaan staat hierbij centraal, ondersteunt met speltheoretische analyses en concepten. Zo helpt dit instrument partijen om samenwerkingsmogelijkheden te verkennen door de belangrijkste elementen en kansen te identificeren en belangrijke logische consequenties te doordenken en bediscussiëren. @en

In het prestatiecontract Beheer en Onderhoud IJsseldelta en Twentekanalen is een ‘Leerteam’ opgenomen. De contractpartijen gaan hierin gezamenlijk op zoek naar innovaties om het beheer en onderhoud van het gebied duurzamer en betaalbaarder te maken. De effectiviteit van het Leerteam kan onder andere vergroot worden door onder andere de gecreëerde meerwaarde beter inzichtelijk te maken en verder in te zetten op doorwerking van innovaties@en

Long-term sustainable port development requires accounting for the intrinsic values of ecosystems. However, in practice, ecosystem considerations often only enter the planning and design process of ports when required by an Environmental Impact Assessment. At this late stage, most of the design is already fixed and opportunities to minimize and restore ecosystem impacts are limited. In this paper, we adopt a large-scale, ecosystem perspective on port development with the aim to identify ecosystem-based design alternatives earlier and throughout the planning and design of a port's marine infrastructure. We present a framework, termed the 'ecosystem-based port design hierarchy' (EPDH), to identify ecosystem-based alternatives at four hierarchical design levels: 1) alternatives to port developments, 2) port site selection, 3) port layout design, and 4) design of structures and materials. In applying the EPDH framework retrospectively to a case study of port expansion in Tema, Ghana, we establish that ecosystem considerations played only a limited role in identifying and evaluating alternatives at all four design levels in the case study, whereas more eco-friendly alternatives in terms of port layouts, structures, and materials are identified using the EPDH framework. This reveals that opportunities for ecosystem-friendly port designs may have been missed and demonstrates the need for and the potential added value of our framework. The framework can assist practitioners in earlier and wider identification of ecosystem-based alternatives for a port's marine infrastructure in future seaport developments and, hence, represents an important step towards more sustainable port designs.

@en

Objective Ports are designed for their economic function, i.e., to accommodate trade. Traditionally, engineering perspective prevails in port design and environmental and social aspects are accounted for at a later stage. A growing consensus recognizes the need for sustainable port development, aimed at finding the right balance between economic, social, and ecological aspects. However, sustainability is an easily coined term to which stakeholders and experts give different interpretations or at least set different priorities, often related to their background and interests. A critical element including sustainability in port design process is gaining insight in the meaning of sustainability and in particular how this can be operationalized. In this paper we give insight in stakeholders’ and scientists’ perspectives from an engineering, ecological, governance and economic viewpoint on sustainability in port infrastructure. Furthermore, we discuss how these perspectives can contribute to a more integrated approach, based on co-creation, giving space to disciplines or viewpoints that are traditionally not that much involved. Hence, broader economic and societal values can be included and opportunities identified, rather than considered as institutional constraints. Methodology The research project employs a bottom-up approach involving a wide range of stakeholders directed at the port of Tema, Ghana. To obtain insight in the perspectives of the four disciplines of engineering, ecology, governance and economy and those of stakeholders in the field, the following activities have been conducted: 1.Literature review and desk research over aspects such as sustainability and sustainable port development andeco-system based port designs was carried out. 2.Scoping workshop in 2016 on problem identification in the Port of Tema, in Ghana. 3.Survey and serious game play across scientists and supporting parties of the projects on the meaning of sustainability in ports in general 4.A large workshop and field mission in Tema Harbour in February 2017 with participation of a wide range of local stakeholders. A game structuring approach was followed for generating visions for the future. During the field mission port authorities and scientists have been interviewed. Results/Findings The different viewpoints provide the following priorities: -Engineering: oFirst and foremost, a port should function as a port (i.e. enable transfer of goods). oNeed for this mild conditions and sufficient depth to allow for berthing and navigability -Ecology: oConserve: Preferably, a port does not affect its surroundings: Location choice is critical, whereby scarce locations such as estuaries should be avoided, rather expand than develop new sites and similar sites well protected. Large scale perspective is necessary. Maintain connectivity oCreate: Smart design (eg gradual transfers, variability), and material choice. -Socio-Economic: oUse Ecosystem services basis for the design; specific values include congestion, coastal erosion, spiritual values, employment and housing oSCBA can be critical in convincing policy makers and investors; this includes fast implementation by reducing complaints and legal constraints -Governance: oStakeholder inclusive design allows for broadening the scale and scope of the issue at hand and may lead to new or creative opportunities oPPPs most likely allow for successful implementation and flexibility in the long term Implications for Research/Policy •Learning about the values and knowledge resources of local stakeholders is essential to create system understanding and identify opportunities for creating added value. From a sustainability perspective, ports are no longer considered in isolation but as part of a coastal, societal and transportation system. This directly allows for broadening the scope and scale on which trade-offs are being made and opportunities searched. The search for opportunities , rather than being reactive, distinguishes a sustainability approach from traditional design approaches. •Based on the perspectives of stakeholders conceptual port lay-outs can be developed, including port expansion plans, ‘add-on’ modules, and how to develop a fully stakeholder inclusive design process •Lastly, the stakeholder/expert perspectives enable the development of a set of evaluation criteria to assess proposed lay-outs, and provide insight in prioritization of different criteria categories.@en