Value integration in multi-functional urban projects: a value driven perspective on sustainability transitions

Abstract

Sustainable urban development requires the integration of diverse values to achieve multi-functional goals. Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) projects can be considered as pioneers in value integration. By combining bureaucratic innovations (BI) and social innovations (SI) these BGI projects are able to reach a more holistic development that is characterised as a value-driven approach for sustainability transitions. In this study on BGI projects, we aim to learn how to deliver multi-functional projects through different interpretation of four factors, i.e. professional culture, governance level, geographical space, and time conception, in various constellations of BI and SI. Results of our cross-case study of four BGI projects in three European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden) indicate that project with higher degrees of value integration balance BI and SI in following four ways: (i) heterogeneity in professions in value-decision-making, (ii) multi-level governance embedded in institutional frameworks, (iii) connecting city-wide and neighbourhood levels by boundary spanners, and (iv) having a dynamic time conception. Our findings imply that social innovation experiences on projects has to fit into the bureaucratic environment to achieve true value integration.

Keywords:

• Value integration
• blue-green infrastructure
• co-benefits
• social innovation
• bureaucratic innovation
• urban planning
• heterogeneity
• institutional frameworks
• boundary spanners
• time conception

Introduction

The multi-dimensional nature of urban sustainability issues brings value-integration challenges in the built environment, as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) profoundly aim to link the social, economic, and environmental objectives (Stafford-Smith et al. 2017). Consequently, urban planning projects aimed at implementing SDGs require the integration of multiple goals and values (Van Broekhoven et al. 2015). In this article, the integration of multiple goals is referred to as “value integration”: the coming together of different values of different stakeholders, for the benefit of society, making our world more secure, smart, shared, sustainable and satisfying (Visser, 2018). In the context of our study, value relates to what is perceived worthy by stakeholders, and to beliefs about what is “good” and “right” (Moore 2000, Martinsuo et al. 2019) regarding the urban environment. Value integration requires a reorientation of the values and goals in development projects, as well as re-adjustments to the institutional frameworks in which they take place (Carmin et al. 2012, Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022). It requires new forms of cross-boundary collaboration between public, private, and societal stakeholders (Molenveld et al. 2020) and implementing social innovations that combine system and actor perspectives (Butler et al. 2017, Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022). Research into value and value creation in project management literature has mainly focused on what is achieved in relation to the general project performance in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and other more commercial values (Martinsuo et al. 2019). The need for new valuation approaches that could integrate the values of various departments and partners infers a need for new behaviours by public employees, their leaders, and the system of the built environment as a whole (Kuitert et al. 2023). The implementation and consolidation of new value-based project behaviour is currently problematic, especially with regards to sustainability transitions. Previous research in the field of construction management has demonstrated the difficulties of implementing SDGs and integrating values at the local project level (Sørup et al. 2019). Researchers have pointed out the need to expand the fundamental project values like engineering quality and cost-effectiveness and to include novel values on social and sustainability dimensions (Farrelly and Brown 2011, Kiparsky et al. 2013, Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022, Kuitert et al. 2023). So far, many of the governance innovations in the construction sector are hindered by the technical-sectoral engineering approach seen in traditional construction projects (Carmin et al. 2012, Naderpajouh et al. 2018). This limits broader stakeholder involvement in the value creation process. To date, value integration is not fully considered in the construction management field. In contrast, adjacent fields, such as urban planning, show a paradigm shift from conventional planning to holistic value approaches, transforming projects from fragmented processes oriented towards technical complexity of innovation only, to taking a governance oriented innovation perspective in which coordination of activities extends to other disciplines, such as public health and wellbeing, nature conservation and mobility (Butler et al. 2017, Nieuwenhuis et al. 2022). We argue that the field of construction management could benefit from lessons learned from governance innovations required for value integration in urban planning. Especially insights from Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) projects are helpful since they are often presented as pioneers in value integration. BGI projects not only touch upon the “blue” water management and engineering values of the built environment, but equally the “green” of environmental values (e.g. habitat restoration, biodiversity improvements), social values (e.g. an inviting living environment through sports fields), and other spatial values (e.g. more greenery). The multi-functionality of BGI thus facilitates the integration of various public, private and societal goals, interests, and values (Kiparsky et al. 2013, Deletic et al. 2020). According to Rijke et al. (2013). BGI projects represent new value-oriented perspectives that better operationalize governance innovations from a construction management perspective, rather than just a technological issue.

In this study, we aim to understand how different forms of governance innovation work together in value integration, and also create a better understanding of how the energy and creativity of citizens and other civil society actors in bottom-up social innovation can be linked to new policy ideas and concepts from the top-down in bureaucratic innovation. This is in line with the proposal for further research regarding governance innovation and the different configurations for value integration on urban infrastructure projects put forward by Kuitert and Van Buuren (2022). This study initially sets out to explore the four influence factors affecting value integration as identified by Kuitert and Van Buuren (2022). The four factors are: stakeholder involvement (professional culture), the types of support available (governance level), organizational embedding (geographical scale) and time-related issues (time conception). We also respond to the call for a more dynamic understanding of value integration (Pel et al. 2020) and a better understanding of the attributes of the various integration modes in order to better match their mechanisms and processes to the stated goal and context (Keast et al. 2007).

The above objectives are encapsulated in the following research question: How do multi-functional BGI projects implement different forms of governance innovation to achieve value integration and deliver multi-functional projects with diverse values?

To answer this question, this article first presents two different extreme types of governance innovation for value integration – bureaucratic innovation and social innovation – and the factors that characterize these innovations. We use a cross-case analysis of the holistic value integration process of four BGI projects in three different European countries – the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden – to understand the governance innovations for value integration. Our cases are driven by public actors and represent predominantly public values complemented with civic values and, to a lesser extent, commercial values. The findings demonstrate how different types of balance between the governance innovation types lead to different value integration outcomes and explain how the interpretation of the different factors – professional culture, governance level, geographical space, and time conception – promotes or reduces this impact.

Governance innovations for value integration

Value integration for Blue-Green infrastructure (BGI) can be achieved through different forms of governance innovation in value-decision making (Tosun and Lang 2017, Karré 2018, Boyd et al. 2022). In this paper, we distinguish two types of governance innovation: (1) Bureaucratic Innovation (BI), a top-down approach leading to optimization of single or aligned values, allowing different sectoral, disciplinary domains to complement each other while remaining separate organizational units (Christensen and Lægreid 2007, Eriksson 2013, Cejudo and Michel 2017), and (2) Social Innovation (SI), a bottom-up approach aiming to create organizational support during the process of project delivery by combining organizational units and stakeholders reinforcing added value creation (Jørgensen et al. 2006, Karré 2018).

Bureaucratic innovation

Bureaucratic innovation focusses on formalizing and embedding new values in exiting value systems by exploiting existing structures and management approaches (Christensen and Lægreid 2007, Eriksson 2013, Kuitert and van Buuren, 2022). A BI type of governance innovation is about crossing organizational pillars and levels, while maintaining the distinction between the values, such as the project network values and the administrative value system of the parent organization. BI therefore engages with parts of the existing value systems, e.g. innovative tender processes restricted by public procurement law to select project partners. In BI, value integration often takes the form of policy integration, which can be defined as “policy-making in certain domains that take policy goals of other, arguably adjacent, domains into account” (Tosun and Lang (2017, p. 559). With policy integration actors create a coherent and simplified set of objectives. Potential value conflicts seldomly arise, or clear mechanisms are established on how to translate conflicting goals in policy choices (Thacher and Rein 2004). Policy integration often leads to a single value strategy and organisations (private or public) often focus on improving one innovation goal without disrupting the business as usual.

In terms of value integration, policy integration can reduce duplication between domains and optimize a specific single value. Separation of tasks takes place, either in time when one domain addresses its task in an early phase and another domain addresses its task in the next phase of a project, or in the organisational structure by placing tasks in different compartments, for example by dividing the spatial domain in a department for new developments and an asset management department (Kuitert et al. 2023). More ambitious policy integration can turn into more aligned and fully institutionalized forms of interactions between domains that mutually develop priorities and strategies (Cejudo and Michel 2017). Alignment, as an early degree of value integration, concerns the parallelization of a system using the similarities of standards to structure it. Alignment increases the compatibility of systems and standards are combined in outputs such as management documents (Jørgensen et al. 2006). Central to the institutionalization of urban climate action is, for example, the development of formal guidelines in terms of regulations, policies, codes, and support programs, but also more informal behavioural norms to enhance predictability and order of policy implementation (Carmin et al. 2012). Although this degree of value integration combines values, separate technical procedures generally appear to remain in place. Kuitert et al. (2023) found for example that when striving for value integration, values are simply added to existing ambitions and then traded-off amongst each other. In practice this often leads to one domain retaining its value ambitions, while adjacent ambitions are adjusted and sometimes even reduced.

Social innovation

Social Innovation refers to new approaches addressing societal challenges in social domains beyond the systemic world of government and the business logic of market actors (Karré 2018). Through networking and joint action, SI offers opportunities for higher degrees of value integration by combining technical, social, and economic objectives that together form new functionalities (Karré 2018, Willems et al. 2020). Via coordination possible trade-offs by the process of organizing people or groups are reduced, which provides a unity of action (Jørgensen et al. 2006) and a "weighted balance" of values. In this governance innovation type, values are coupled and do not significantly get in each other’s way so that each value reaches at least a basic standard, and possibly more. The fact that one must be satisfied that others are able to optimize value while oneself "just" reaches the set value standard, beholds the danger of degenerating into the pursuit of the sum of individual customer desires (Stoker 2006).

Added value is achieved when values are mutually reinforcing (Stoker 2006) and the integration of values leads to enhanced value for each objective within the integration. The highest degree of value integration – when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts – can only be achieved by creating a culture of learning, stakeholder participation, and continued improvement (Jørgensen et al. 2006). Hence, a pitfall of SI can be that broader benefits are added to existing ambitions, to eventually become lost in other goals, such as financial feasibility and project management issues.

Table 1 provides an overview of the two governance innovation types BI & SI and the potential for value integration.

Table 1. Governance innovation and value integration.

Governance innovation	Bureaucratic innovation		Social innovation
Type of value integration	Policy integration		Stakeholder involvement
Potential for value integration	Fragmented	Aligned	Coordinated	Integrated
	Single value Values are achieved separately. Division in time (first one, then the other); Division of tasks (we do this, you do that)	Combined value Values are added as additional objective to existing ambitions and are then traded-off amongst each other.	Weighted value Values are combined, do not significantly get in each other’s way, each value reaches at least a basic standard	Added value Value is achieved when the integration of values leads to additional value for each objective.

Governance factors that influence the impact of value integration

For sustainable urban development different approaches lead to different levels of value integration (Boyd et al. 2022). The co-benefits and trade-offs of urban development appear to both depend on the local context in which the action takes place, as well as the governance factors of climate adaptation such as implementation practices. Kuitert and Van Buuren (2022) identified four different factors that influence the presence of BI and SI as innovation governance approaches to value integration: (1) professional culture, (2) governance level, (3) geographical space, and (4) time conception. How different characterizations in these four factors of BI and SI affect the potential for value integration in multi-functional urban projects is further deepened below.

Professional culture

The first factor “professional culture” influences the way stakeholders are usually involved. This can either be from a more sectoral perspective leading to a main value that needs to be aligned with other sectoral goals, or from a multiple value perspective in which values of different stakeholders are aligned, combined or mutually reinforcing (Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022). This means, for example, that blue-green infrastructure (BGI) generally is a responsibility of the urban water management domain at a local government (Farrelly and Brown 2011). Core values in urban water management, such as its technical orientation and cost-effectiveness, must be connected to other types of logics for the delivery of multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits (Karré 2018, Raymond et al. 2017). Due to the character of the construction industry, procedural and performance values like accountability and measurability are firmly embedded in the project delivery processes (Kuitert et al. 2019). This means that engineering and contracting departments generally have BI oriented structures and tools as many decision-making models from the engineering disciplines have a rather technical character. In the initiation phase of a project engineering municipal professions on water safety and sewage are often consulted and then become dominant actors in decision-making. For example, the Design Quality Indicator (DQI) provides a toolkit to measure, evaluate, and improve the design quality of buildings based on functionality, built quality and impact (Whyte and Gann 2003). Delineations are made from a technical and spatial perspective, limiting integration goals. As the decision-making proceeds as a sequence of successive phases, this also leads to separate targets for each phase (Molenveld et al. 2020), social and environmental domains are often asked for advice when project objectives are already set, and therefore need to be implemented after initialisation, leading to value trade-offs.

SI moves beyond crossing various governmental boundaries and a heterogenous group of professional cultures to be involved (Willems et al., 2020). This offers different pathways regarding value integration by engaging with various value systems; from public institutions under public procurement law, public and private organizations in their socio-technical environment, to residents in their societal context (Karré 2018). To illustrate, the domain of urban water management must bridge policy domains internally within the government, including health departments and urban planners (Wamsler et al. 2020, Willems et al., 2020). Externally, public clients need to engage with private and societal values, which requires local government actors to combine values and combine conflicting market and social institutional logics (Thacher and Rein 2004, Karré 2018).

Governance level

The second factor concerns the perspective on the governance level at which value integration may take place. It addresses whether integration is only considered as a strategic policy concept as in BI, or whether it can also take place operationally, tactically, or even between individuals within a firm leading to opportunities for SI (Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022). With regard to climate adaptation, for example, cities are often focused on strengthening existing and single goal criteria when it comes to climate adaption plans. Their adaption planning heavily relies on national plans, national climate regulations, or their own development agendas and sector-based policies, as this leads to political buy-in (Boyd et al. 2022, Carmin et al. 2012). Value integration as BI therefore taking place at a strategic level subsequently has to find a way through the municipal organization and the BGI project. This often takes place by integrating adaption into the existing work departments (Chu et al. 2016).

Value integration through SI, on the other hand, can occur at multiple organizational levels. It has a more bottom-up character – within the organization or in an (internal-external) collaboration and seeks to ensure that value integration is picked up and implemented throughout the organization. Bottom-up SI moves beyond the crossing of various governmental boundaries and creates joint public value by engaging different stakeholders with various value systems. Institutional embedding is also beneficial for value integration through SI. These institutions are, however, in SI not only considered as being different levels in the municipal organization, but also in terms of partners in the collaboration itself. As Carmin et al. (2012) and Chu et al. (2016) show, both internal programmatic incentives and benefits as well as support from diverse urban stakeholders, are conducive to inclusive approaches to urban sustainable planning and implementation.

Geographical space

A third factor influencing value integration is the predominance of clearly geographically defined projects (Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022). The construction industry realising BGI projects is traditionally project-based. Policy implementation therefore often takes place trough projects. Even though BI and SI can both take place in such environments (Eriksson 2013), the project-based character of the industry potentially hampers value integration in various ways. Working with projects, for example, leads to strict (institutional) demarcation; either due to project related rules and regulations which limits the possibility of expanding the plot (institutional demarcation) or because of the actual physical geographical demarcations of the project site itself (Eriksson 2013, Martinsuo et al. 2019). Institutional delineation is usually caused by the dominance of project language, structures, and processes and conditions such as budget, capacity, planning, and policies are used to provide measurable criteria to assess the success of a project (Kuitert et al. 2023). As the potential of social and sustainability values that are created by an urban development project are often wider than the project itself, geographical demarcation can more easily hamper the impact of social and sustainability objectives. In BI, the neighbourhood perspective is more common in local social innovation approaches than in policy implementation through projects (Tosun and Lang 2017, Karré 2018).

Time conception

The fourth factor of time conception relates to the different perspectives on time, especially around goal setting for the different governance innovations. Public organizations are used to work with deliberate and purposeful value management approaches, like policies (e.g. land use) and regulations (e.g. CO2 emission standards), common in bureaucratic settings (Williams et al. 2020). These settings entail static approaches to values management and assume a sufficient knowledge base and measurability of values with works for most technical (e.g. sewage) and spatial (e.g. housing) values (Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022). More static approaches to value management are purposeful, which means that value considerations are made based on pre-determined and or single value goals (Stewart 2009, Williams et al. 2020).

Especially for social and sustainability values of multi-functional projects like BGI, it is important to consider indirect and long-term effects (e.g. possible improvement for future residents), that cannot be correctly assessed by taking a particular place in time as the reference point. This means that changes to the way values are managed need to be emergent (Stewart 2009) and value dynamics should not be dismissed (Pel et al. 2020).

Table 2 summarizes how four factors influence the governance innovation types and the potential for value integration.

Table 2. Overview of governance factors.

Governance innovation		Bureaucratic innovation		Social Innovation
Type of value integration		Policy integration		Stakeholder involvement
Factors influencing innovation	1. Professional culture	Sectoral Technical		Relational Technical, spatial, social
	2. Governance level	Top down Institutional embedding		Bottom up Local network
	3. Geographical space	City wide		Local/neighborhood level
	4. Time conception	Static Purposeful		Dynamic Emergent
Potential for value integration

Methods

Cross-case study

We employed a qualitative research approach using a cross-case study research of four Blue-Green Infrastructure projects that originate from different cities of three different North-Western European countries; the Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden (Table 3). Case study research allows for acquiring in-depth, context-specific knowledge (Yin 1994), which is crucial for understanding value integration in practice. For each of the projects we therefore determined how the four different factors that affect value integration – professional culture, governance level, geographical space, and time conception – lead to different constellations of bureaucratic innovation (BI) and social innovation (SI) and different levels of value integration in BGI projects.

Table 3. Summary of the cases.

Project	Case A Blue- Green City Park	Case B Urban Regeneration CityLab	Case C Municipal Participatory Park	Case D Harbour Park
Country	The Netherlands	Belgium	The Netherlands	Sweden
Period	2018 – 2022	2017 – 2018	2017 – 2021	2013 – 2020
Goal	Creation of multi-functional park by transforming existing sport fields	Creation of blue-green flood defense along a river in a living lab for urban regeneration	Redevelopment of a city park with water bearing infrastructure based on participatory construction approach	Creation of a Harbour Park and green interventions in former harbour area by temporary land-uses
Value integration	Climate adaptation (water storage), biodiversity (higher quality green), recreation and public health (better accessible sport facilities), economic development (higher property prices).	Climate adaptation (flood defense), economic development (regeneration existing businesses), recreation and public health (more attractive facilities for residents), biodiversity (higher quality green).	Climate adaptation (water storage), biodiversity (higher quality green), recreation and public health (better accessible sport facilities), economic development (social return).	Social (climate awareness-raising, social cohesion), wellbeing and health (stimulating recreation facilities), economic development (city branding, generating traction for the area).
Participating actors	Municipality, housing association, neighbourhood organisation, Sports Council	Municipality, Waterway Agency, local entrepreneurs, designers, nature preservation NGO	Municipality, local small and medium-sized enterprises, residents, intermediaries	Municipality, port authority, designers, residents

All cases share the ambition to realize multiple goals of Blue-Green Infrastructure. In addition to achieving their urban water management and green space management goals, the cases also aimed at obtaining social and economic objectives such as fostering public health (Case A: the Dutch Blue–Green City Park), facilitating recreation opportunities (case B: the Belgian Urban Regeneration CityLab and C: a Dutch Municipal Participatory Park), and city branding (case D: a Swedish Harbour Park). The four projects differ in terms of constellations of governance innovation and value integration outcomes and therefore lead to a maximum variation on the independent case variables (Flyvbjerg 2006). Since all cases take involvement of the local municipality, the influence of the administrative public domain is taken into consideration when discussing the applicability of findings in commercial settings.

Data collection & data analysis

Different types of data were gathered for each case to allow for source triangulation and distinct between self-reported behaviour, actual behaviour and official documentation. In total, 24 semi-structured interviews were conducted with municipal actors from different spatial, technical, social and sustainability departments, and private and societal partners in the period between 2018 and 2021. The interviews lasted, on average, between 45 and 90 minutes. To explore where frictions occurred among value systems that emerged from different constellations of governance innovation and how this influenced value integration, we ensured a good representation of the different levels – from both project and parent organization – of the project network in selecting interviewees and allowed different professional perspectives to emerge (Hennink and Hutter 2011). In addition to the interviews, documents (policy reports, construction plans, political meeting reports, etc.) were gathered and analysed. First, we collected the documents that were referred to in the interviews, often with help of the interviewees themselves. Next, we selected additional documents on the project that referred to the specific values that needed to be integrated and the type of governance innovation. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim to be analysed in Atlas.ti together with the other data.

We used qualitative content analysis to investigate what happened with both sustainability goals and wider societal goals when delivering the BGI projects. Using an inductive coding technique, engaging with data first before subsequently looking for patterns, allowed us to capture the way in which value integration is shaped and how the four factors influence this process. We placed a particular focus on societal, sustainability, economic, and technical values and coded the questioning of values, the combination of values, value trade-offs and value creation outcomes (single value, combined value, weighed value, added value). Professional culture was coded based on internal and external collaboration issues, public participation, and government participation. Governance level was coded by top down and bottom up, central and decentral and the contextual elements of the network. Geographical space was analysed by contextual elements of the neighbourhood and the scale of the value goals. Time perception was coded first by marking the process, the understanding the dynamics and goal setting or emerging and then the governance innovation, which was coded on steering and managing approaches, decision-making and capture/assurance of values. Altogether, we found the views of the participants to be complementary, providing a valuable detailed and multifaceted picture of the conditions, drivers, and barriers concerning value integration in BGI project through the different constellations of governance innovation. Below, we first present the overall results on balancing the different types of governance innovation per case. Then we discuss the four influencing factors using exemplary findings of the different cases.

Findings

Balancing bureaucratic innovation and social innovation

The four BGI cases each show their own balance in BI and SI factors, which leads to different value integration outcomes in these multi-functional urban projects. In case A Blue-Green City Park, the local administration defined a new program around the theme of a “blue-green city” after the local elections in 2017. For this theme, a new municipal team was created that could continuously draw attention to the issue of urban climate adaptation and water management. Interviewees mentioned their limited financial resources to realise these ambitions, framing themselves an “add-on” to enhance policy integration between existing policy departments. For example, the co-benefits of creating BGI, such as improving public health, liveability, and biodiversity, were emphasized by the team. As such, multiple municipal departments became interested in the “blue-green city” program. Yet, funding had to be found within existing financial structures tied to existing (sectoral) projects to add minor blue-green elements to them. Major blue-green improvements were repeatedly not feasible.

The program team also appealed to local stakeholders by emphasizing BGI co-benefits. To enhance BGI implementation, the team worked with neighbourhood organizations, such as welfare professionals, housing associations, and community initiatives. Social entrepreneurs were approached to facilitate the maintenance of the newly created urban green spaces because the team argued that neighbourhood professionals would know best how to involve residents. For this, some small-scale activities were set up that led to minor green improvements in the neighbourhood. Altogether, Case A Blue-Green City Park demonstrates that single values became more aligned with each other, and in best case more coherent.

Case B Urban Regeneration CityLab consisted of the development of a new vision and implementation agenda for a neighbourhood adjacent to a river crossing the city, a former recreational spot on the river’s left banks. Case B followed a process of complexification since constructing BGI was used as a means for wider urban regeneration. For this, the municipal spatial planning department reached out to other stakeholders that have an interest in the regeneration. Even though several policy visions on the larger left banks had been developed earlier, the local administration decided to create a deliberate experimentation space for aligning these visions: the CityLab. The complexification therefore took place in a relatively safe space outside regular bureaucratic structures. Interviewees from the municipality appreciated the living lab structure since it allowed them to collaborate with each other in a relatively “safe heaven”. They could also meet other stakeholders and discuss each other’s ideas, without having to commit yet. Consequently, the CityLab was able to create a fertile ground for (non-binding) policy integration.

In the CityLab, the municipality invited local stakeholders: local businesses, nature organizations, and landowners such as the local waterway authority. This created a transdisciplinary environment in which stakeholders and public officials jointly developed a vision on the future of their long-neglected neighbourhood. Collectively they envisioned a new blue-green landscape park attracting residents and visitors along the riverbanks, that would also provide new customers to the currently located businesses (restaurants, swimming pool, a marina). Even though the municipality officially guided the process, stakeholders perceived their participation as getting a sense of “what was going on” rather than contributing much themselves. The innovative vision from the CityLab was embraced by the participants but did unfortunately not receive any formal commitment outside the laboratory setting. The CityLab had an unclear mandate and the ideas developed here were difficult to translate to regular work practices. Overall, Case B Urban Regeneration CityLab resembles a coordinated attempt of value integration with a balanced combination of values brought together by green improvements near a blue river.

In Case C Municipal Participatory Park the municipality wanted to turn a traditional public square in a deprived neighbourhood with a playground and a modest petting zoo, into a municipal park in which climate adaption measurements in the form of green water buffers. The park was intended to have a wide appeal that would boost the reputation and urban living quality of the whole area. This case acted as a pilot for the new municipal policy with regard to an innovative stakeholder participatory approach based on core values of collaboration and social return. Before officially announcing the tender for this BGI project, a tender board discussed and assessed whether the project would be in line with various innovation policies and whether opportunities with respect to co-benefits would not be missed.

The idea for the project originated from one of the aldermen responsible for the particular district of the city. Aiming for innovation in public procurement, a public-private project network of project related stakeholders was established with the aim of realising high social goals regarding Social Return on Investment (SROI). A group of local small and medium-sized enterprises could sign up to participate in a tender pool – hoping to eventually be awarded one of the contracts for the design and/or execution of the project. A resident panel was set up to represent a variety of inhabitants groups during the design and procurement process. Two assistant project managers were appointed by the municipality to act as intermediaries for these two groups. Together with the construction project manager, these three project managers formed the core of the project team, complemented with representatives of the municipality and landscape architect. In the end, co-design of different stakeholder groups materialised, and value alignment led to weighed value.

The placebuilding activities in case D Harbour Park were a local initiative of the City Council to mark the city’s 400-years anniversary. The City Council planned to locate the park in a former harbour area to be transformed into a sustainable residential neighbourhood and the park would be a way to “kickstart” this regeneration. The municipality collaborated with the local landowner, a port authority, and set up a project organization that would become responsible for placebuilding activities with residents and artists alike to activate the place. The redevelopment was predominantly driven by the spatial planning department with limited involvement of other departments.

The focus in this BGI project was put on involving residents as much as possible. Just as Case B, the project made use of a living lab by creating a distinct project organization, with contributed staff and resources of the local municipality and the port authority. The project team felt much freedom, yet also fell outside regular work practices. Complexification of value integration could primarily be seen in the relationships that were established with citizens. The placebuilding element emphasized high levels of participation because the project team decided to put citizens as much as possible in the driving seat. They were not only allowed to propose ideas for the park, but also co-design and co-construct these ideas in order to turn the citizens into ambassadors of the new neighbourhood. Work was commissioned to participatory artists and designers, who were responsible of specific parts of the area, which led to the co-development and co-creation of a sauna, a playground, and other amenities. Citizens were also allowed to join the construction and maintenance activities facilitated by architects. Overall, Case D Harbour Park managed to deliver different values in an integrated manner and create added value.

The impact of governance factors on value integration

The impact of the different balances between BI and SI on value integration can be explained by the four different factors as identified in our theoretical framework (e.g. Kuitert and Van Buuren 2022): (1) professional culture, (2) governance level, (3) geographical space, and (4) time conception. Below we discuss the impact of these four factors in the context of the BI-SI balance, and accordingly, the impact on the degree of value integration. These findings are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Overview of the governance innovation factors in the four cases and the impact on value integration.

	Case A Blue- Green City Park	Case B Urban Regeneration CityLab	Case C Municipal Participatory Park	Case D Harbour Park
Four influence factors
Professional culture	New BG-team to interest other teams Rather sectoral: Physical domain and technical department (water focus) predominant. Social aspects as valuable add-ons.	BGI as a means for wider urban regeneration Relatively relational (although not equally presented): Spatial planning department led city lab. Focus on climate awareness (social and sustainability perspective) New construction (physical) depending on sewer replacement (technical)	Spatial plan (BG) as a tool for social objectives Relational: Strong position of social professions in spatial and sustainable decision making	Park (BG) as a means to urban regeneration Internally sectoral: Predominantly driven by spatial department, Externally relational: combination of professional and non-professional cultures
Governance level	Bottom up (internally and externally) Program team outside regular domains leads to limited institutional embeddedness (limited political power and funding)	Top down restricting bottom up High institutional embeddedness (green and water plan), confusion about participation, lesser of a local network	Top down facilitation, bottom up development Strong Institutional embeddedness (political support), local network created to design and develop park in co-creation	Bottom up development Living lab strongly institutionally embedded (informal relations), deviation from municipal procedures possible
Geographical space	City-wide and neighborhood level through intermediary City-wide program translated into neighborhood pilot Local boundary spanner	More local level (living lab) Geographical focus of the CityLab Sustainable entrepreneur as connector	City-wide and neighbourhood level through intermediary City wide policy translated to neighborhood characteristics Local boundary spanner	More local level (living lab) Holistic free-standing department: Sustainable entrepreneur as connector
Time conception	Dynamic approach pursued by the team within the more static bureaucratic settings	More static approach: technical department (water focus) wanted to secure the final ‘integrated’ project goal in the early stages of project delivery	Flexibility in network due to parallel working facilitating dynamic approaches, limited by more static procedures in process	Temporality allows for a dynamic approach
Impact
Governance innovation	Both BI and SI; SI more developed	Both SI and BI; BI more strongly developed	Both SI and BI	More SI, less BI
Degree of value integration	Aligned single values	Combined values	Weighed value	Weighed value added value

Professional culture: the leading domain

Our cases show that value integration requires a heterogeneity of professional cultures. Nevertheless, each of the four cases centre staged one value or goal and thus professional culture. We found that the professional domain leading the BGI project actually determines the value integration potential. Our case analysis indicates that when the main goal originates from a technical department (i.e. urban water management, greenspace management), acting as the “owner” or asset manager of the water construction tasks, the management approach was often more mono-value oriented, e.g. a sole focused on urban drainage or biodiversity improvements.

To illustrate, in case A the professional cultures rooted in the physical domain – urban planning, greenspace management – were prevailing as most attention was devoted to the creation of a “blue-green city”. The project team was able to involve a wide range of professional cultures, encompassing urban water management, urban planning and design, recreation, housing, public health, and wellbeing. A public official working on health for instance stated: “We were put together for the first time in ages. I met colleagues I have had never seen. Like, those people from the sewage department, when should I suppose to meet them?” These cultures were, however, involved in different degrees. Actors that represented more social issues – recreation, local liveability, public health and wellbeing - participated but had to fight for their position in the value integration process. The social issues were often seen as valuable “add-ons” rather than fully integral of the initial value proposition. Like the local sport association explained: “If the municipality is going to change something near the sports park, we take the opportunistic stance to join forces. Because only then we can realise the vision. We have been developing ourselves too”.

In Case C the municipality used their sewer replacement needs to also urge greening of the park area in light of climate adaptation. In this case the spatial department was in the lead, creating a coordinated form of impact on value integration. They acted in a quite pragmatic way, trading off different interests.

In Case B, the water issue was central in their CityLab from the perspective of “loading things integrally”. A team member indicated that: “You can consider [the Urban Regeneration CityLab] as a small pilot area to create a green-blue landscape. […] That can boost commercial activities… you can hike there… It’s the best of both worlds, an urban metropolitan environment in a green landscape”. The living lab involved actors from a diversity of professional cultures such as urban planning and design, urban water management, economic development, and mobility. The process was led by the spatial planning department while other departments and other stakeholders could contribute. Moreover, local organizations (businesses, landowners) were involved. Similar to Case A, these cultures were not always valued equally, as in the end, the spatial planning department always decided upon the official next steps. The status of the CityLab was unclear to some participants and participation took place on a voluntary basis. Local businesses, for example, already participated for a while with other departments and took a “wait and see”–stance. Similarly, the local river authority argued that “they wanted to carefully monitor the plans” and see how the plans related to their responsibility of ensuring water safety. Yet, the focus on BGI also created valuable opportunities for local nature organizations to, start framing the redevelopment area as a “gateway” to their nature reserves east of the city.

In case D, the placebuilding activities took place in a former harbour area, where the temporary character and vacant space offered increased “room” for value coordination. This case was also led by the spatial planning department, which aimed with the Harbour Park to create shared ownership for the area among officials and residents alike. To this end, professional cultures had to be bridged with “non”-professional cultures. Artists and facilitators were hired to engage citizens in the design, construction, and maintenance of the park through participatory art projects. Such projects created a safe zone in which professional and non-professional cultures could meet, fostering social innovation. The facilitator explained: “People were very curious about this River City idea. […] It grounds the project a lot, giving it strong anchors in terms of stakeholders. […] There are people who were involved in this phase and who still go to the sauna weekly. They take care of it because they feel it’s theirs”.

Added value only occurred when the social perspective was leading. We found that the pursuit of common goals was more natural when social professions were part of the value decision-making, and a broader view was taken. This broad view appears to positively impact the bringing together of different viewpoints. In case C, social goals like SROI were especially strived for in redeveloping their municipal park. They, for example, aimed to realise apprenticeships for local residents in the execution phase of the spatial development project, trading off against new types of values in the social domain. Social departments appeared to also have a stronger position when the main aim was to create climate-awareness. This was particularly seen in case B where a non-profit but (partly) publicly subsidized local entrepreneur advised on sustainable construction, residence and living in their CityLab. Their campaigns proved to be especially useful in raising awareness for climate change.

To conclude, when BGI projects are driven by a technical or spatial profession, this causes that the decision making often remains to be taken from a single or dual value perspective. A professional culture where social and sustainability professions are part of the value decision-making are more natural in the pursuit of common goals.

Governance level: institutional embeddedness

All cases show the importance of institutional support and dependence of higher organizational levels to achieve value integration. Hence, there needs to be some form of top-down – bottom-up interaction. However, our analysis also reveals that successful value integration through stakeholder involvement can only be achieved if the top-down institutional support does not frustrate the bottom-up actions that were taken.

Cases A, C and D show positive outcomes of higher-level institutional embedding. In case A, for example, a specific vision was created for their Blue-Green City Park. This vision was picked up by directors and very important for the alignment with the city as a whole. The aim was to develop internal and external value integration from the bottom up. The program team deliberately aimed to position their blue-green infrastructure challenge outside the regular domains of urban water management and greenspace management. Because the team had limited resources to enforce its program, they had to work in a more collaborative spirit with other departments and neighbourhood organizations. An official of the municipality explained this as: “You can realise much more if you do it together with the parties that can gain a lot from those [blue-green] interventions”. The team was actively looking for opportunities to translate its vision to others. This led to a strong institutional embeddedness but limited political power and funding. While the build-up of the team engaged with neighbourhood organizations, the interviewees also indicated that the expansion of the network towards local partners remains a challenge that still needs to be taken on.

A successful higher-level embeddedness was also seen in case C, in which the combination of the construction of a city park with high social return and participatory ambitions was initiated by a local alderman who wanted to boost the relatively poor neighbourhood. The institutional support led to a more facilitating role of the municipality and therefore many additional opportunities. A climate adaption section was added to the urban development plan of the project when the opportunity rose to find additional finances that would cover a gap in the project budget.

In case D, interviewees indicated that it was all about the coordination of visions for their harbour plan and educating their partners on how to work in accordance to the new vision. The municipality developed a living lab setting for the to-be-regenerated area. By emphasizing the temporary character of the developments, the team behind the lab created much leeway to deviate from established municipal procedures. An official from the municipality explains this as: “The Park is a place where we can try ideas; it’s not permanent from the start, so we can try something and get information from the citizens, and […] then along the way see what the needs are”. The abundant resources allowed a large involvement of residents and artists, which resulted in a local network of stakeholders. The park was developed from the bottom-up, as residents were invited to provide ideas and subsequently implement them. Furthermore, the institutional embeddedness was secured through the political importance of creating a park in advance of the 400-year anniversary of the city. In this case, the anniversary as a top-down element rather acted as a symbolic administrative form of embedding than a regulatory form. It did therefore not influence the bottom-up process in a negative way.

Case B was less successful in securing higher-level support. Here, civil servants needed to “sell” the climate adaptions by emphasizing the flooding in certain neighbourhoods from a safety perspective. Safety was one of the core municipal values that was translated in higher level municipal strategies, like the city’s tradition of green and water plans also including the values of liveability and heritage of the city. One of the implementations of this strategy was a rather progressive spatial structure plan with a “soft spine” with multiple BGI projects. The strong link between the plan and strategy caused a strong institutional embedding and municipal stakeholder involvement. A living lab was set up to implement the plan through a bottom-up approach with local stakeholders. Several top-down participation forms had, however, already taken place to create the previous versions of the plan. The downfall of this approach was that local businesses felt slightly overburdened and did not understand the relationship between both participation trajectories. An official responsible for this participation explained that: “We had to explain to locals that another part of the municipality was responsible for [the living lab], but residents do not care about that”. The local network was therefore weakly developed. More institutionalized parties, such as other municipal departments and public landowners, were involved, but did not truly commit themselves. As a result, the CityLab did not develop many collaborative bottom-up processes structures. Yet, the project team indicated that it was found useful in building cross-overs with other policy fields within the municipality.

Concluding, a multi-level governance level in which projects are embedded in wider formal and informal institutional frameworks can organize resources to support value integration.

Geographical scale: scale of value integration

To build a network that is needed for social innovation, all cases concentrated on specific neighbourhoods and projects. Yet, they did not limit themselves to the project scope, leaving space for stakeholder involvement that allows for a collaborative network to emerge. Narrowing the geographical scale therefore counts as a lever for social innovation. To implement policy goals on the neighbourhood level and include different important stakeholders, our findings show the importance of using neighbourhood intermediaries to integrate system-world logics and lifeworld logics. In each case, different intermediaries could be found.

Both in case A and case C, the intermediary was used as a “connecting” figure – the eyes and ears in the neighbourhood with a strong local network and also a network in the system world, acting as a boundary spanner. In case A, a city-wide program team decided to show impact on the ground by selecting promising neighbourhoods where BGI measures could be implemented most easily. To illustrate, three workshops with local organizations revealed neighbourhoods with many ongoing developments that could be enriched with blue-green elements: “We sat around the table with very different parties to match ambitions and projects with each other. We were looking at places where ambitions were really adding up. The ‘Bird’ neighbourhood was the most striking one, of which we were not fully aware [as a municipality]”.

Local organizations, such as social entrepreneurs, were approached to reach residents and other local stakeholders. In this case, the social entrepreneur was willing to collaborate, because it could improve the local liveability and it related to his intrinsic values. Moreover, it provided new funding opportunities outside the healthcare and welfare domains for this organization. In case A the intermediary was very involved with the residents and lent out garden tools to stimulate residents taking out pavement in their garden and plant green. This was a good solution for the fact that one cannot expect residents to buy a lawn mower or pruning shears for such kind of small green spaces, especially when most of the residents have to deal with limited finances.

In case C, the participation of local stakeholders merely came from an external connection. Local businesses and entrepreneurs were brought together in a tender pool and a residents’ panel was established. The neighbourhood-specific nature of the participation was emphasized “symbolically” hiring a project manager that also had a role in an existing partnership in the neighbourhood. Hence, the importance of the local-scale level was reinforced by translating and customizing the municipal participation approach to characteristics of the neighbourhood.

In case B and D sustainable entrepreneurs were the intermediaries. As the municipality was keen to regenerate the urban area in Case B, they had already worked on the redevelopment area for a while. Because an BGI perspective was relatively new for the municipality, they explored this in a dedicated CityLab. The geographical focus of the CityLab helped to identify stakeholders and interests. A non-profit but (partly) publicly subsidized local entrepreneur advised on sustainable construction, residence and living, leading to significantly increased awareness for climate change. In case D, a group of more holistic thinking colleagues worked together in a separate municipal department which aimed at the construction of BGI projects from a combined social-technical and human perspective (broader goals vs. climate goals). The park was constructed on a vacant plot, a former harbour area. The local landowner agreed to regenerate the area using the park in order to sell the land to real estate developers at a later stage when the area is turned into residential areas. Most of the interviewees perceived the area as a relatively “blank canvas” that can be used for multiple purposes. New constructions, such as the sauna and skatepark, showed how the neighbourhood can be developed in different ways. The municipal project team co-developed prototypes of green infrastructure together with residents to raise awareness and get people involved with the design and maintenance of their local environment. Each of these constructions managed to attract different visitors, making the area increasingly attractive for investors.

In conclusion, a boundary spanner allows for a collaborative network to emerge for holistic and integrated sustainable urban development by connecting the citywide geographic orientation of the parent organization’s institutional logic and the neighborhood-level social living logic of the project network.

Time conception: dynamic processes

The cases exhibited different time conceptions, depending on the formality in the delivery process. More dynamic time concepts created possibilities to include values at different phases of the delivery process enabling value integration.

Case B followed a quite static approach because the water issue was central, while it was discussed that one could “load things integrally” to the goals of the spatial policy domain. However, because the technical department wanted to secure the final “integrated” project goal in the early stages of project delivery, the dominance of the water issue hindered flexibility during the process. Also, the CityLab could have allowed for more flexibility in time when it would have a formal status. Because of this informal status public and private actors did fully not participate and did not confine themselves to the outcomes in the end. The promising integration of values proposed in the CityLab itself therefore faded over time. Likewise, the network that participated in the lab quickly feel apart.

Case A, however, shows that, although internally formalization leads to a static approach, the collaboration with external partners was less effected in the development of their Blue-Green City Park. In this case, the program team followed a dynamic approach to integrate values. The team worked purposefully but left the “how”–question deliberately open, to integrate values emergently. Being limited in resources, the team decided to complement and link different municipal domains with each other. Here, we observed a clash between the dynamic approach pursued by the team and the more static bureaucratic settings of each domain. For example, many sectoral budgets were already allocated to specific projects and timeframes. This created limited flexibility for integrating (additional) values, such as those related to BGI. However, this was less of an issue for external stakeholders.

Case C and D show overall a more dynamic approach leading to more opportunities in terms of value integration. In case C, the standard phases of project delivery are used, which normally lead to a quite static process in which on phase is closed before the other phase is started. However, in this case we found that some phases or activities were deliberately lengthened or run more in parallel. Especially in the early phases of the project, the project network provided a lot of opportunities to increase value integration by involve stakeholders at different phases or steps of the process . like the project leader explained: “Hopefully, it also has to do with the fact that we approached and engaged ACOR [advisory board on public space] during the early stages, even before we got started. We asked them to tell us about the general lines that we had to consider” The fact that their project was labelled as a pilot also offered opportunities make certain decisions in a later stage, creating space to integrate values when opportunities occurred. Although this provides flexibility, the development of the process itself, however, remains quite static due to the many procedures in the project delivery.

In Case D we found a dynamic approach that successfully integrated internal and external stakeholders. To create an environment in which a dynamic process could occur, a special project organization was created with members from the local municipality and the port authority. This project organization was deliberately put on a distance from the home organizations, having freedom to take its own decisions. This supported the creation of innovative relationships between officials and residents leading to value integration. Whereas the overall goal and timeframe were clear – activating a regeneration area – its completion was left to residents and artists. Values were therefore integrated in an emergent way. The team opted for a prototyping approach. Creating temporary structures helped to bypass rigid institutional structures, while simultaneously creating opportunities for learning-by-doing along the way.

To conclude, a more dynamic time conception in which improvements can be made along the way created possibilities to include values at different phases of the delivery process enabling value integration.

Table 4 summarizes these findings, showing how the professional culture, governance level of the innovation, the geographical space and the perception of time creates different kind and degrees of value integration. In each case BI and SI can be found in different developmental phases.

The BGI projects studied show different interpretations of the four factors, which creates different balances in BI and SI that affect the potential for value integration. Although the factors have been discussed separately above, the findings as discussed also show that these factors influence each other. We will discuss this further in the discussion below.

Discussion and reflection

In the search towards a more integrated and holistic development approach of a sustainable construction industry we looked at several European Blue-Green Infrastructure projects. Our findings indicate that extending their views on value integration by integrating concepts from a planning perspective would benefit the field of construction management. In extending the debate between construction management and urban planning we discuss the following three topics: (1) the need for incorporating an integrated balance of BI and SI in project practices, (2) the importance of institutional embeddedness of changing value systems, and (3) the importance of time dimensions in utilizing value integration perspective. Here we show that the different influence factors, i.e. professional culture, governance level, geographical space, and time conception, mutually determine the constellation of BI and SI and thus the potential for value integration.

Firstly, the results from our cross-case study showed the importance of parallel approaches of BI and SI, since BI requires SI to utilize the potential of value integration and vice versa. In organizing these parallel approaches professional cultures, governance levels and geographical scales interact. While much SI literature focuses on new compelling relationships between public, private, and civic actors (Karré 2018), our study demonstrates the additional need for more heterogeneity in involved governance levels to ensure value integration. We found that a better balance particularly in top-down and bottom-up processes in which both heterogeneity in project and parent organization is achieved, allows for a combination of neighbourhood perspectives with city-wide policy objectives that leads to more successful value integration. While previous studies claim that value integration requires a heterogeneity of professional cultures to form hybrid forms of governance as a form of social innovation (Karré 2018, Kuitert et al. 2023), our study indicates that combined (alignment) or weighed (coordination) value integration is often created while leaning more towards BI. Traditionally the rather technical initiating and procuring departments of BGI projects have structures and instruments for BI facilitated by higher bureaucratic levels, such as strategic procurement departments that align with other city wide policies, however when implemented at the project level their geographical impact is delineated. Cases where spatial services take the lead, appear to be more equipped to collaborate with other construction professionals working, such as in urban water management and green space management, who together consider broader (geographical) impact from a professional perspective. Our study shows that the form of integration achieved is influenced by the professional characteristics of this leading profession (Farrelly and Brown 2011, Kuitert et al. 2023). The internal and external hybridity related to the balance in characteristics of BI and SI of the spatial or social profession adds an important “city-wide focus” to these institutional and interactional elements concerning sustainability measures and value integration. This is in line with other literature that emphasizes the benefits of a place-based approach over one that is people- or sector-related (e.g. Khan et al. 2018). To be able to integrate technical, spatial, social and sustainability values, an organizational structure is needed that allows for working in a collaborative and explorative way from the issues at hand, and not just from the predetermined (sectoral) task with clearly defined solutions. Longstanding debates on integrated project delivery models and increased life cycle thinking in construction management show similar issues of continued fragmentation in the sector (e.g. Jones et al. 2022) and its potential to really change collaborative and value driven practices in the industry (Hedborg and Rosander 2023), Vosman et al. 2023). Taking inspiration from BGI projects might strengthen this movement towards more integrative value driven collaborations that contribute to our grand societal challenges like climate adaptation and social coherence.

Secondly, the importance of institutional embeddedness to change value systems and supply chain collaborations become prominent. Our study shows how parties become acquainted with each other’s culture. Yet, this does not necessarily lead to developing joint solutions. This study shows how social and sustainability values of actors that have a more emergent character must still be adapted to the more static value systems and associated methods of technical and spatial disciplines – or in other words institutionally embedded – to prevent that integrated value-decision making will only lead to small add-ons (“quick wins”) on neighbourhood level lacking a structured approach. This supports the findings of recent research into public commissioning in the construction industry, showing that to add new values, one should either establish new value systems, or safeguard new values through old value systems (Kuitert et al. 2023). To change value systems it is important to keep investing in increasing the sense of interdependence of social and sustainable professions. The actors who give meaning to and enact with the public space in which BGI is planned, should also be involved in its design and maintenance. This way they are able to attach their own values to these spaces and know what can make a difference given the spatial, social, and cultural characteristics of that space. This can be realized by creating institutional support, e.g. by allowing budgets to shift in terms of time and man-hours, issuing mandate for social and sustainability actors, and increasing information sharing between different municipal departments.

Next to strengthening the position of social and sustainability professions within the organization, our study also demonstrates the importance of multi-level embeddedness, for which informal structures are as important as formal structures. We found that this also counts for forms of SI where institutional demarcation is often of more informal nature. This strongly relates to earlier work on implementation barriers specific to the project-based characteristic of the construction industry, and the dominance of project language (e.g. Hobday 2000). It furthermore shows the importance of the use of a process language that allows for customization from a social and sustainability perspective. It truly seems time to invest in artifacts, behaviour and other routines that actually speak the language of value integration, as also studied by Svensson (2022) in the field of facilities management.

Lastly, our findings indicate that public organizations are comfortable with the rather static value approaches of deliberate and purposeful value management common in bureaucratic settings, like policies that assume an adequate knowledge-base and the measurability of the values involved in technical and spatial work (Williams et al. 2020). Although this study emphasizes that a dynamic understanding of values is difficult to handle in a bureaucratic environment, it is also shown that more dynamic time conceptions helped to develop value integration more “on the go”. We found that more dynamic time concepts have already become more common for urban planning professionals, but that construction management actors need to learn how to balance long term city-wide goals with neighbourhood goals, translating larger SDGs to the daily lives of citizens who identify strongly with short term goals. This is a pattern visible in other transitions towards a more sustainable and circular built environment, showing strong signs of vicious circles that form persistent barriers to a transition (Coenen et al. 2023). The value integration potential shown in our BGI case studies could probably contribute to breaking down parts of these circles. An open project definition, for example, allows other parties to join at a later stage, as the goals could be refined over time. It is these rather simple changes of project practices that could probably relatively easily increase the potential of value integration in each construction project.

Conclusion

Building on a cross-case comparison of Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) projects that aim to achieve multiple values, goals and interests, we conclude that broadening the spectrum of governance innovation types from bureaucratic innovation (BI) to social innovation (SI) opens up new ways of value integration in sustainable urban development projects. By focusing on pioneers in value creation from the field of urban planning, we have been able to explore more integrated and holistic development value-driven approaches for sustainability transitions in the construction industry. This kind of governance innovation may lead to different degrees of value integration: single value (fragmented), combined value (aligned), weighed value (coordinated) or added value (integrated).

A perquisite for balancing SI and BI when implementing sustainable urban development projects appears to be: (i) a professional culture where social and sustainability professions are part of the value decision-making are more natural in the pursuit of common goals; (ii) a multi-level governance level in which projects are embedded in wider institutional frameworks can organise resources; (iii) a boundary spanner to connect the city-wide geographical orientation and neighbourhood level; and (iv) a more dynamic time conception in which improvements can be made along the way. BI needs SI to link policy ideas and concepts to the energy and creativity of citizens and other societal actors that become increasingly important in realising construction projects.

With regard to the generalizability of our study, we acknowledge that this work provides mechanisms to balance BI and SI for sustainable urban development rather than “best practices” which are often understood as being limited in their applicability to other environments. Yet, when applying the findings to other settings, the four influence factors – professional culture, governance level, geographical space, and time conception –, the level of complexity in terms of heterogeneity in stakeholders (including civic organisations), and the dominant professions and the presence of silo-thinking would probably determine the lessons that can be applied for the field of construction management.

Future research could investigate different types of sustainability projects, such as social housing and healthcare facilities, and assess to what extent the factors of influence play a role to define the degree of value integration there. This also relates to the geographical scale of other types of projects: from the individual building scale (green roofs) to neighbourhoods and cities (parks, ecological corridors). Finally, future research could look more specifically into the influence of disciplinary culture (see for example Björkman and Harris 2018) on values and assessment and decision-making approaches.

Our study implies that project managers should be able to apply different capabilities of BI and SI related to the integration goal of a project. They must be capable of working both more hierarchical and decentralized at the same time, both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, and combining different geographical and temporal scales. Yet, it is important to realize that the choice not to pursue some degree of value integration in construction also remains an option. A balance between business as usual and integrated innovation approaches and solutions related to this, may be sought based on impact, not based on suitability with existing systems only.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, LK. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of study participants. Participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to LK and require permission from the participants involved.

Additional information

Funding

This research was made possible through the BEGIN project—Interreg VB North Sea Region Programme and The Dutch Construction Client Forum