Your Sustainability Is Not My Sustainability: In-between Spaces for Meaningful Collaboration between Local Stakeholders and Planning Professionals to Construct Congruent Frames over Contested Meanings

Abstract

Urban sustainability is a highly contested topic because the challenges of sustaining urban ecosystems are interlinked with environmental justice and equity concerns. In urban planning processes, this requires more collaboration between professionals and local stakeholders (citizens and entrepreneurs). Yet, participatory processes in urban planning are strained with various challenges. This article suggests that in order to consciously shape communication for meaningful collaboration, it should be studied as a function of communication spaces, termed “in-between spaces”. These so-called in-between spaces are studied through the comparative analysis of two such spaces in the same brownfield redevelopment project in Amsterdam. The first space was created by an instrumental participatory process and the second through a co-creative approach. The spaces were studied through desk study and action research. The results indicated that fuzzier boundaries of in-between spaces and methodological plurality are needed for creating new congruent meanings, creating inter-dependencies between actors, and potentially fostering transformative learning, needed for sustainable urban development. Secondly, this article offers grounded insights into the contested interpretations of sustainable development between different sets of actors and identifies the potential of well-designed in-between spaces to make these tensions constructive. Lastly, this article highlights the diverse use of phronetic management (wisdom or ‘mindfulness’ in learning and leading attitudes for pragmatic action) by actors and the use of visual and creative methods for creating congruent meaning between actors, provided that local stakeholders feel ownership over the creative process and resulting output.

1. Introduction

In the 1970s, Amsterdam was the site of contestation between planning professionals and residents because they imbued meaning differently to the notion of a “modern city” [1]. Fred Feddes, Dutch journalist and writer, reasoned that this was because the professionals envisioned a future of technical refinement, and the citizens envisioned one of social refinement [1]. Present-day Amsterdam, with its rich urban form and cycling culture, is the result of that contest. Half a century later, the city is again the site of a new but similar contest of meaning—what does it mean for Amsterdam to be a sustainable and liveable city in the future? Cities like Amsterdam are facing challenges like climate change adaptation, energy resilience, social injustice, procedural injustice, etc., which has resulted in the evolution of the field of planning: to become more reflexive by including integrated, adaptive, and participatory approaches [2,3,4]. This form of sustainable urban development, which includes multi-stakeholder perspectives, is highly dynamic and contested in nature [5,6,7].

Sustainable development is understood as a balancing act integrating social, environmental, and economic goals, but a common contentious question is “what is it that we want to sustain, and for whom?” [8]. Is it the current social order, or current production and consumption patterns that we want to sustain? Is it the integrity of (urban) ecosystems? And, if it is about the latter, what does a sustainable city look like? [6,7,8]. The ambiguity of urban “sustainable” development and its contested meaning is well-documented in the literature [6,9,10,11], with contradicting and competing definitions [12]. These contradictions reflect different interpretations, including environment–economy integration, impact on future generations, environmental protection, equitable growth to meet the needs of those lacking resources, quality of life beyond economic growth, and the participation of different stakeholders in recognising different needs [9]. These principles can result in fault lines between different actors; for example, the degree of environmental protection can vary while integrating the economy with the environment [9].

In the early decades, the focus of sustainable development research was mainly on ecological sustainability; but in more recent years, equity and environmental justice concerns have come to the fore to address the barriers created by the afore-mentioned fault lines [7,13]. Additionally, the challenges of urban sustainable development are interlinked and require an integrated and deliberative approach, between the governors and the governed [14] and between the natural sciences and social sciences [15]. Different knowledges (of municipal actors, of practitioners and professionals, and the tacit knowledge of citizens) are needed for locally attuned sustainable urban development [16]. Urban sustainability transitions—pathways to more sustainable urban futures—require fundamental changes in structures, in institutions, and in the daily practices of the various actors involved. Urban sustainability innovations need to be developed locally [7,8], and do require transformative learning [17]. Transformative learning in sustainable development is the ability for individuals and organisations to “recognise and reassess” their frames of meaning used to structure their expectations and assumptions about sustainability and the related policy areas (like mobility, sustainability, etc.), which inform how they feel, think, or act in various situations [18]. These frames of meaning determine their views on what needs to change and what needs to be sustained.

Due to the contested nature of sustainable urban development, this article studies how communication for collaboration takes place between different sets of actors within two distinct “communication spaces” [19]. Such spaces are dynamic and constructed by actors trying to “fix” space by asserting political, cultural, statutory, and physical boundaries [19]. The first communication space is “fixed” by an instrumental participatory process and the other by a co-creative process. To differentiate these communication spaces as a function of communication for collaborative practice between actors, as opposed to the exchange of information alone, this article identifies these spaces as “in-between spaces”. Communication in these spaces is not for the purpose of conveying information but to create joint problem definitions and argumentation through interaction and translations between different actor groups [20], in this case, planning professionals and local stakeholders. These in-between spaces take form outside the immediate network of different actors, who leave their comfort zone to participate in collaborative processes. Establishing the boundaries of these “in-between spaces” allows the study of these contested processes and how they can be designed to allow for the exchange of perspectives, the joint creation of new meaning, and transformative learning.

Creating these collaborative in-between spaces is additionally challenging because the implementation of participatory planning processes do not necessarily lead to satisfactory outcomes [21,22,23]. Hence, this article additionally investigates the challenges and the paths to meaningful collaboration (i.e., collaboration which evokes a sense of purposeful and worthwhile interaction) in these in-between spaces that can lead to congruent frames between actors, which can lead to transformative learning. Congruence here refers to a pragmatic, contextual agreement on collaborative action between actors, each achieving a favoured value.

The article outlines the challenges of, the need for, and the paths to, well-designed in-between spaces for meaningful collaboration in sustainable urban development as follows. The first introduction section consists of (a) the background of citizen inclusion in urban planning projects, (b) meaningful [24] collaboration and the (re)construction of meaning through framing, and (c) phronetic management (actors using leading and learning attitudes for transformative change) [25]. Section 2 describes the research design and the methods used to gather empirical data. Section 3 outlines the results from the two different in-between spaces. Section 4 discusses the results in three sub-sections: (a) the challenges of creating well-designed meaningful collaboration within in-between spaces and the need for diverse methods to create them, (b) the potential impact of well-designed in-between spaces where contested interpretations of sustainability can be translated into the joint creation of new meaning, and (c) the role of actors involved and the potential use of creative methods. The last section concludes the article by emphasising the need for well-designed in-between spaces and avenues for future study.

In this article, the following research questions are addressed:

• How, and to what extent, do different in-between spaces allow for the communication of meaning and the creation of congruent frames of meaning between planning professionals and local stakeholders?
• How, and to what extent, do different frames of meaning lead to contested interpretations of the sustainability within these in-between spaces?
• Which qualities of in-between spaces allow for transformative learning, potentially leading to congruence between actors?
  • What roles do different methods play in fostering transformative learning?
  • How do actors use principles of phronetic management to foster good in-between spaces?

1.1. Background: Citizen Inclusion in Urban Planning Processes

The inclusion of local stakeholders in planning projects is challenging, and despite good intentions from professional actors, these processes are not always satisfactorily experienced by actors as genuine or meaningful. These processes are implemented in the form of citizen hearings, invitations for comments on zoning, citizen voting, and information evenings, amongst others [22]. The resulting dissatisfaction can result in anger and mistrust, or in people placed into polarised camps. Eventually, such experiences lead to alienation from the political planning system [22]. This article uses a classification from participatory literature that differentiates these processes as instrumental, deliberative, and empowering [26,27]. The latter two categories have transformative potential [26] which can be understood as transformative learning where actors can find congruence between formal knowledge and the lived spatial expertise of stakeholders. This can generate new ideas, congruent meanings, and stronger social networks [28].

The Netherlands has an established history of (instrumental) statutory participatory processes, partly encoded in law. For example, participation in the Municipality of Amsterdam has been prescribed in the “General Participation Ordinance” since 2016 [29]. Additionally, the new Dutch Environment and Planning Act 2024 (“Omgevingswet” in Dutch) gives more legal prescriptions for the inclusion of citizen perspectives in order to strengthen adaptive capacity through knowledge sharing and to create social capital [30]. There is also a local professional culture which gives space to (partly) foster deliberative democracy (as an example, [31]) and empower participants through (co-creative) processes in participation (as an example, [32]). Despite this rich history in participatory planning practice, a report on the development trajectory of a housing project in Amsterdam by the regional Ombudsman concluded that there was a “gap” between citizens and professionals. This was despite efforts by the Amsterdam municipality to facilitate citizen inclusion through various formats, such as “value walks, game-based processes, and ‘living-room’ sessions”, etc. [33]. The report identified areas of miscommunication, particularly where citizens were unclear as to their role in these processes and felt that they were participating in matters that had been decided on or had little say in. Yet, the report [33] also noted that the municipality had good intentions to facilitate participation through informing, commenting, and ensuring that citizens had a say in the redevelopment of their living environment.

This contradiction in how participation is envisioned by planning professionals and how participation is experienced by local stakeholders is a case in point of a more general phenomenon, documented in the planning and participation literature [23,34,35,36]. Citizen participation in planning processes is often seen in public discourse as a chance for citizens to “feel heard” or “feel involved” [33]. However, the notion of “feeling heard” assumes that citizens only want to be heard, as opposed to being understood, and their input valued by the recipients. Furthermore, this contradiction stems from a history of the planning profession imposing plans that did not match how citizens perceived their city, because it was assumed that their needs were understood by the professionals [37]. In Amsterdam, this is further fuelled by policies that have reduced the social housing stock in the city, leading to long waiting lists and creating more distrust [38]. Additionally, participatory processes have gained the negative image of a tokenistic exercise undertaken by policymakers to “tick the box” [23,39]. This results in an unbalanced space where citizens offer their time to validate, or add to, the knowledge of planning professionals, as opposed to a space where new transdisciplinary knowledge is jointly created by teasing the tension between professional and local knowledge. While there is more awareness amongst planners to include citizens in practice, centralised and rationalist modes of thinking are built into the field and require changes in the system. However, there is an example of flexibility from the municipality of Amsterdam, in response to a group of residents who underwent a participation strike, which has resulted in a co-creative relationship between the actors involved [40].

This contradiction has three noticeable consequences: firstly, an increased resistance to the implementation of sustainable urban development plans; secondly, a missed opportunity to incorporate local expertise into the development of such plans, which can lead to their success and increased value for stakeholders; and, thirdly, participation fatigue [21] within actors (both professionals and stakeholders).

1.2. Meaningful Collaboration for Congruent Frames of Meaning

The working definition of meaningful collaboration in participatory planning processes can be drawn from the work of Yeoman [24] as the ability for local stakeholders and planning practitioners to engage with each other over their living environment while maintaining a positive emotional connection to (a) the physical and imagined city, (b) other actors, and (c) the participatory process without feeling alienated. The need for collaboration, which evokes a sense of genuine and worthwhile interaction between actors, is well documented [21,26,33,41]. Yet, meaningful collaboration between different actor groups is challenging because they operate from different frames of meaning, with assumptions and expectations based on their experiential knowledge, their value systems, and their background theories (academic or professional) [42,43]. These different frames also result in the contested interpretation of sustainability by different actors.

Nonetheless, participatory processes allow the opportunity for local stakeholders and planning professionals to communicate their frames of meaning, engage with other frames of meaning, and create new congruent frames of meaning. For instance, these processes allow actors to engage with one another, with the potential to enrich their lived experience. This can potentially result in the creation of new joint frames of meaning, and empathy for other frames of meaning. These new congruent frames (not necessarily shared) are the needed groundwork for transformative learning that can lead to collaborative action between stakeholders [43]. Congruent frames, as opposed to shared frames or consensus between actors, means that different actors within the planning projects (both planning professionals and local stakeholders) can recognise their values and have their needs met by the city (or development process), resulting in common action [43]. Congruent frames are both a result and a catalyst for meaningful collaboration in participatory processes because they allow actors to create interdependencies and interlinkages between different groups, while maintaining positive emotional connections to the real and imagined city, the actors, and the participatory processes themselves. These congruent frames of meaning can be potentially fostered within well-designed in-between spaces.

1.3. In-between Spaces for Collaboration and Phronetic Management

In-between spaces can be defined as abstract spaces of communication between distinct actor groups. These spaces can potentially foster transformative learning and the construction of congruent frames of meaning. These spaces are similarly described by Duiveman as spaces that foster problem structuring through interaction and translations between two distinct communities or disciplines [20]. In urban planning, these in-between spaces are created between the boundaries of different communities, namely, planning professionals and local stakeholders (typically laymen like citizens or entrepreneurs).

These spaces are also similar to solution-oriented transformative spaces [44], as “safe-enough” collaborative learning spaces for sustainability transformation. However, the goal of in-between spaces is not to find solutions but to create congruent meanings around contested topics. They also share similarities to “communities of practice” [45], but they remain different because, while actors share interests (the redevelopment of the city), their spheres of expertise are too dissimilar for “shared practice”. These in-between spaces are also unique from other boundary-spanning (crossing) techniques in the boundary-spanning literature because their objective is to facilitate interaction between two domains while preserving the integrity of the boundaries. Crossing boundaries alludes to continuity across two domains by fulfilling a bridging function [46,47]. Planning professionals are bounded by their professional mandate, laws, experience, etc., while local stakeholders are bounded by the mandates of their daily lives, profession, or businesses. It is unreasonable and impractical to expect continuous exchange and knowledge production between these two groups, unlike interprofessional knowledge production, where the actors are bounded by more similarities than differences (for example, similar working hours and overlapping institutional cultures).

Now that they are defined, it is important to understand how they can be initiated and maintained by actors who take on this role. These individuals may originate from the different actor groups, with a capacity for self-critical reflection and an intrinsic affinity for communicating with the other, or an independent actor hired or volunteered for this role. These individuals are unique because they can use learning and leading attitudes with principles of reflexive phronetic management, as articulated by Loeber and Vermeulen [25], to create these spaces by (i) balancing individual needs against the common good (like sustainability), (ii) adapting project goals to emerging project needs, (iii) creating a neutral environment where diverse types of knowledge be balanced against the operation of power in institutional settings, and (iv) fostering transformative learning within the participants (and internally in the in-between actor). Phronetic management can potentially create the necessary conditions for making pragmatic agreements for fixing boundaries of in-between spaces.

2. Case Description and Methods

2.1. Case Description: Sustainable Redevelopment of an Amsterdam Brownfield Area

In 2021, the municipality of Amsterdam published a vision for a “humane metropolis” [48]. This vision was to be realised through five strategies: polycentric development, growth within limits, sustainable and healthy mobility, rigorous greening, and making the city together [48]. The brownfield area in question falls under the city’s ambition to phase out polluting industrial activities within the city limits, which currently contribute to 18% of the city’s carbon emissions [49]. One of the resulting projects was that a portion of the current industrial area would be transformed into a mixed live-work area in the next 15–20 years, also taking into consideration the housing needs of the city [50]. The brownfield area included very few residential buildings; however, its boundaries overlapped with the ongoing civic functions of the city (like public green spaces and sports facilities). While the area of the brownfield redevelopment project would be limited to three neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, the pool of stakeholders included five adjacent neighbourhoods because of the anticipated impact. The impact is significant because the current population (using the city’s place-based approach to demarcating boundaries) will increase from 42,000 households [51] by an additional average of 55,000 households [52]. It is also relevant to note that, in 2023, for the area (and its surroundings) in question, nearly 80% of the existing population had a mid-high education level, 43% of the population had a non-migration background, 21.9% of the households had children, and nearly 15% of the population were 65+ years old (retired) [51].

As a part of the city’s vision, the municipality of Amsterdam published a policy document outlining its ambitions for the brownfield redevelopment plan. They envisioned a mixed-use development with more housing, more jobs, a new low-car mobility perspective, and a greener healthier district that was targeted at starters, retired persons, students, expats, single-households, and families.

As per the city’s statutory framework for participatory planning [29], the policy document was opened to comments or perspectives from local stakeholders (including citizens, entrepreneurs, and social organisations). This article will use the term “local stakeholders” to refer to this set of actors and fall back on specific terms (like citizens or entrepreneurs) when specificity is needed. The local stakeholders responded with nearly 400 comments, which were predominantly pessimistic about the municipality’s ambitions. As per the statutory process, the municipality responded to the comments within a period of six months, along with two pages of changes to the policy document. The policy document, the 400 responses from the citizens, and the response from the municipality summarising the comments along with answers (80-page document) formed the dataset to study the first in-between space. The citizens did not feel that the municipality offered a meaningful response to their questions and concerns. Some citizen representatives expressed their dissatisfaction by writing letters and organising field visits (bike safari and walking tours) with the municipal team. This dissatisfaction eventually led to new arrangements: a one-year experimental city-lab or citizen consultation group set up by the municipality, with a vision to “do better participation”. The second in-between space is represented by these new arrangements. The core team maintaining the second in-between space included local stakeholders (a citizen collective and entrepreneurial representatives) and the project team from the municipality, and an independent facilitator was hired by the municipality. The citizen collective comprised eight different local citizen-led associations, for example, residential associations, allotment garden associations, sports associations, park management associations, etc. The goal of the core team, developed jointly under the guidance of the facilitator, was to identify relevant issues in order to develop a multi-value qualitative framework of the existing area. This framework was conceptualised to dynamically capture the “soul” of the area (at the request of the citizens), and it was to be updated periodically (by continuation of the city-lab) and to be referenced by planning professionals during the subsequent phases of the project. To identify themes and content for this multi-value framework, the core team organised public workshops targeting specific sub-groups within the local stakeholders (residents, entrepreneurs, teenagers).

The next section discusses the methods used to collect and analyse the data.

2.2. Methods

Action research has been identified as a relevant methodology for creating new actionable knowledge, enhancing collaborative governance arrangements, and facilitating systemic changes that are needed to address the inter-linked challenges of urban sustainability [53,54]. This research used a bifurcated approach to action research for urban collaborative governance: conducting action research and linking theory with practice [54]. The following stages [54] were used in the research design: pre-research, fieldwork, analysis, design and experimentation, and output. Due to the nature of action research, these stages are blurred and overlapping in practice [54]. The activities in these stages included negotiating the starting point, enacting multiple roles and responsibilities, challenging the existing structure, and reflexivity [53].

The results were produced through a comparative study between the two in-between spaces: (1) based on typical instrumental participatory planning practice and (2) based on reflexive arrangements for a more co-creative approach.

The first in-between space was studied as a part of the pre-research stage of the research project, through observations, desk-analysis of the policy document, a thematic analysis of the 400 comments by the local stakeholders, and the response by the municipality.

The second in-between space was the one-year city lab with a core team (local stakeholders, municipal project team, and facilitator). The activities of the core team over a period of ten months were studied as part of the fieldwork stage of the research design. This required the author to become a contributing member of the core team, by being sincerely interested in their collaborative goals, by being a committed ally (not just collecting data), and by having a “hands-on” approach [54]. The author had a variety of roles in the project: supporting the core team to make visual objects to capture contested meanings, brainstorming ideas for the workshops, supporting implementation, and offering reflection moments to different actors during one-on-one discussions.

The fieldwork stage included the author’s participation in seven meetings by the core team, two public workshops organised by the core team (approximately 120 participants), individual meetings with stakeholders, and three codesign meetings with the citizen stakeholders. This fieldwork stage also combined the “design and experimentation” stage [54] undertaken in collaboration with the facilitator and others in the core team.

The second in-between space was studied using fieldnotes by the author, the communication within the core team, and the output from the activities of the core team, such as documents, maps, and drawings.

In both spaces, the observations noted are through the perspective of the author’s professional background as an architect, urban planner, and a social scientist. This unique position allowed the author, as an action researcher, to approach different actors with an empathetic lens.

An abductive approach was used in the analysis of the data collected from both in-between spaces. Three (overlapping) themes emerged from a preliminary overview of the data, which indicated contested meanings around sustainability: urban and architectural elements (towers, industrial heritage, landmarks, land parcels, etc.), green and water (recreation and ecological values), and mobility. The resulting themes were used to filter the data, which were manually coded using the seven building blocks or elements, as suggested by Sullivan to study communication spaces (ideas, objects, ethics, practices, rules, emotions, and expertise) during collaborative work [19]. The analysis of the data was parallelly fed back into the work of the action research while reflecting on the case with actors in the core team.

The work of an action researcher is challenging, in that it requires maintaining a neutral position as a researcher. At the same time, action researchers have the unique position of empowering the less powerful through knowledge and capacity [55]. These dilemmas made reflection with colleagues and other co-inquirers a necessary part of the research.

3. Results

3.1. First In-between Space

The boundary of the first in-between space was fixed by the rules and the process of the municipality’s statutory framework for participation and a policy document which outlined future plans for the district. Commenting in the process was open to stakeholders and those interested in the project. The participatory process was limited by the statutory framework as the ability to put forward opinions to the proposal and offered no space for formal objection.

The object at the heart of the first in-between space was the future city imagined by a policy document, which also sought to spatially consolidate policies for the region. This core object was formed by ideas that actors had about the city, based on their frames of meaning or perception of what was acceptable or not acceptable. The municipality formed these ideas based on institutional knowledge and professional expertise. The ambitions outlined in the policy document were based on a set of principles for sustainable urban development, which included a dense work–living environment, a car-less environment, improved public transportation, preserving the cultural characteristics of the city, etc. The citizens formed their ideas of the city based on their lived expertise of the built environment; for instance, the 2020 global pandemic had resulted in an increased appreciation for a healthy active lifestyle and accessibility to open spaces. Additionally, citizens may form ideas for the city based on historical events or actions by the municipality [56]. For example, some citizens believed that high-rise buildings did not fit the urban morphology of the city; this view comes from the local historic failure of high-rise housing [57].

The instrumental nature of the first in-between space allowed the municipal actors to demonstrate their expertise through the policy document. It was roughly 150 pages, with photographs of existing and imagined spaces (through examples from other cities), explanatory text, structural plans of the area, and illustrations with architectural typologies that reflected the policies for the area. The use of dense professional language, both written and visual, was criticised by citizens for being inaccessible to laymen. The use of international reference images was not appreciated by the citizen stakeholders because they felt it was a technique used by planning professionals that sometimes ignored local contextual factors.

Though the written format of the statutory process imposed limitations on sharing their lived experience, the citizens still demonstrated their expertise by sharing their perception of future problems and the valued parts of the city that would be lost as a result. They also demonstrated expertise through the mobilisation of voices. Nearly 25% of the comments were recognisable variations of “manifestos” by local community organisations or small alliances (groups of two or three people writing together) to increase their impact. Some citizens also shared their own professional expertise, and a few used emotions through the written word (like short poems) or evoked visual local references from the Netherlands or past examples of urban development that did not have successful outcomes. The local stakeholders also had singular diverse opinions to share, ranging from mild dissatisfaction with the high-rise buildings and low household-to-parking ratio to wind turbines destroying houseboat communities, amongst others.

In the responses from the municipality, comments from the citizen stakeholders were anonymously filed under different themes (like housing, mobility etc.). The comments of approximately a dozen companies or associations were also responded to (not anonymised).

Table 1. Table illustrating communication of meaning in the first in-between space.

Municipal Policy Document	Local Stakeholder Comments	Response from the Municipality
Architectural or urban elements
Highly dense work-living environment to accommodate more than 100,000 new residents and an additional 50,0000 jobs.	Went against the idea of having a village-like or garden-city-like experience in the city. Some citizens were concerned that many high-rise buildings in the city are not successful for various reasons (wind tunnels, shadows cast on surroundings). The citizens wondered if the municipality had truly considered these technicalities.	The municipality reiterated the underlying principle, the redevelopment was to be a highly dense urban district. They suggested that further studies and exploration with urban forms were needed to answer questions.
Many old industrial buildings were set for demolition, and parcels of land allotted temporarily for cultural activities were to be phased out to create space for new buildings.	A few citizen stakeholders emphasised the existing culture in the city, where buildings were creatively appropriated by entrepreneurs and cultural organisations.	Many of the buildings in question or plots were not owned by the municipality, and plans for that were largely dependent on their ability to acquire property. The municipality did not have free space to allocate for creative appropriation by local stakeholders at this stage of the project.
Land currently allotted for a sports association had been demarcated for other uses. The policy document proposed compact sports parks.	The citizens felt that a much-loved sports institution and community association that was integral to health, well-being, and strong community ties had not been given recognition in the policy document. The citizens felt strongly that such locally developed institutions were extremely important. They also believed that the current location was paramount because of its accessibility (biking distance for children).	The municipality agreed that the sporting facilities were important. The sports and community centre could stay until the end of the lease (less than a decade away). The sports facility would be relocated eventually, but the current position after lease expiry would remain uncertain until there was more clarity about the extension of the metro line to improve public transport connectivity.
Blue-green networks (ecological and recreational value)
An existing city-level park was extended to be included in the new project.	The citizen stakeholders valued and intensively used the existing city-level park and were unable to comprehend why it was included in such a dense urban development. Broadly, the citizens were concerned about the green space standards being followed in the project.	The municipality responded that a motion was passed in the local council to consciously not include the city-level park in the green space calculation. However, there were privately owned green spaces adjacent to the city-level park that the municipality wished to acquire. The relevant green standards were not elaborated further.
The policy document proposed that some of the much-needed green space would be achieved through green roofs.	Some citizens felt that green public spaces on roofs did not have the same accessibility as the existing “grounded” green spaces.	Not mentioned.
Mobility
The municipality aimed to only allow a car–household ratio of 1:5.	A few citizens were concerned about the impact this would have on car ownership. They felt that it was not always feasible for everyone (differently abled, parents of small children) to use public transport (currently expensive). It is important to note that, despite car parking being a contentious topic in participatory planning projects in the Netherlands, it was not a large theme in the responses.	The municipality reiterated that the underlying principle was to have sustainable mobility (with only 20 per cent car usage). The municipality assured the citizens that shared mobility, a high-quality public transport network, and cycle infrastructure would compensate for personal car ownership. However, the affordability of public transport was not addressed in the response.
The policy document had an ambitious plan to have a high-speed cycling infrastructure that connected this new development to the rest of the city.	The citizens appeared to be outraged that the proposed cycling infrastructure cut through allotment gardens that were carefully maintained by residents and was uniquely home to special urban flora and fauna. They believed that it was paramount to protect the unique flora and fauna in such a dense city like Amsterdam. They also pointed out that efficiency alone was an outdated parameter for designing cycling infrastructure; elderly people, children, and leisurely cyclists needed to be equally accommodated.	The municipality reiterated the importance of the cycling infrastructure as a part of the policy document’s new mobility paradigm. However, they acknowledged more studies needed to be conducted to explore alternative routes.
The policy document illustrated a plan to improve public transport connectivity (metro line) of the brownfield area to the centre of the city.	Some citizens were concerned that the route indicated on the structural map would disrupt spaces in the city-level park.	The exact route of the metro line had not been decided at that moment; hence, the municipality could not offer any certainty but acknowledged that more participatory processes with stakeholders were needed with the affected parties.

illustrates the imagined future of the brownfield area, focusing on three themes: architectural (such as buildings) and urban elements (such as land parcels), blue and green networks (for their recreational and ecological value), and mobility.

Multiple citizen respondents also echoed a joint plea to, “do real participation”. However, the municipality emphasized that appropriate participatory meetings, both online and in-person, would take place at different phases of the project. The changes to the policy document by the municipality were under two pages long. These included updates to the legends of maps and the rewording of some sentences for improved clarity. Specific topics were set aside for further study. There were no significant concrete changes with spatial impact apart from the exclusion of the city-level park (as a consequence of an earlier adopted motion in the local council) in the green calculation and the removal of a speed limit for bike lanes in neighbourhood streets. It is also clear that there was a lot of uncertainty, and the municipality did not have clear answers at this phase of the project. The uncertainty was also compounded by the challenges of integrated sustainable urban development, which is dependent on other governmental and private stakeholders and not just the municipality.

It is also important to consider the ethics and underlying value framework of the actors. The municipality’s values are echoed in its vision for the sustainable development of the city. However, the citizens have different value frameworks that illustrate the physical characteristics of social sustainability [13]. For example, when citizens brought up concerns of wind turbines in proximity to their homes and businesses, or about the predominance of public transport in the project, it was important to understand the values and ethical identities of the citizens at play. The objection to the wind turbines was a concern that houseboats (affordable housing) in proximity would be lost, and the objection to public transport was not in principle, but rather to the high price of public transport in the Netherlands.

Ultimately, the municipal responses were deemed unsatisfactory by the citizens. A select group of representatives of citizen groups continued to discuss the policy document and the municipal response. They adopted different methods to convey their dissatisfaction to the municipal project team, by instrumental means, such as writing letters to the Alderman and the project manager, and by creative means such as field visits (bike tour and walking tour), where the citizen stakeholders invited professionals from the municipal project in order to offer their lived-experience perspective of the policy document’s spatial implications. The project manager was unable to make promises regarding concrete spatial changes in the policy document but agreed to set up a city lab to deliberate the concerns of various stakeholders.

3.2. Second In-between Space

The second in-between space was significantly different from the first space, in that it was developed as a dynamic experimental studio process as opposed to being determined by a statutory framework. The boundaries of the space were “fixed” by the active citizen stakeholders and the project manager, who collectively exhibited partial characteristics of phronetic management (leading attitudes) by exerting influence on the existing system [25]. The citizens advocated for a more collaborative approach to jointly create new meanings around the core object (the sustainable redevelopment of the brownfield area), and the project manager was able to set up the new process outside of the municipality’s statutory framework. While this was a joint outcome, signifying new congruent frames, there were no rules highlighting obligations and expectations from the actors involved. This is similar to what some academics have described as fuzzy governance [58], which can have the potential for collaborative learning [59].

The project manager appointed an independent facilitator from a conflict resolution agency with academic ties to maintain the second in-between space. He also accepted the role of an action researcher (the author of this paper) on request from the citizen stakeholders. The facilitator was to organise a city-lab in the form of a collaborative studio process between the local stakeholders and the project team (jointly called the core team). The studio was defined as a transparent process where citizen stakeholders could jointly work with the project team towards the next phase of the brownfield redevelopment project. It is important to acknowledge that, at this point, the citizen stakeholders were fatigued from engaging in this process for nearly two years (since the publication of the policy document) and were suspicious of the project manager and the project team behind him. They did not want to just “feel heard” but have a genuine impact on the outcomes. The municipal project team were simultaneously concerned because some of the citizen stakeholders’ worries were dependent on decision-making within the political sphere, where their role as civil servants was ambiguous. It was agreed within the core team that there needed to be a clear understanding of the “negotiables and non-negotiables”. The municipal team also emphasised that it was important that the process would extend beyond the demographic reach of the citizen representatives in the core team, for the perceived legitimacy of the results.

The facilitator took into consideration the concerns of the different actors before setting the ground rules for the process and putting forward a year-long proposal. The proposal included three public workshops with a broader reach of stakeholders from different target groups. The citizen stakeholders also emphasised that, while there were power differences at play, they did not feel they were inferior in strength and capacity as contributors to the development of the city. They were to be jointly planned and the results analysed by the core team. An agreement was made that the output of the studio process would not be design proposals but rather a multi-value framework of the stakeholders of how they perceived (and valued) their living environment. For the citizen stakeholders, this was important because their criticism of the policy document was that it failed to capture the “soul” of the existing lived environment and their lived experience. The project manager later instrumentalised this by proposing that the output of this studio would be an appendix to the original policy document and brought to the municipal council (local political sphere).

The public workshops were designed by the core team to elicit diverse opinions through diverse means. The participants were invited to share their contributions to the value framework through pitches, mapping, and the opportunity for one-to-one conversations with the core team. The first workshop was targeted at citizen stakeholders, the second at the entrepreneurial stakeholders, and the third was planned to target future residents (namely teenagers). The composition of the core team evolved to take into consideration the themes, the urgency, and the desired target groups.

The content of the core object, the imagined future city, was comparable to that of the first in-between space, and, hence, is not discussed in detail in this sub-section. However, how the content was communicated differed in important ways. The nature of the second in-between space was conducive for local stakeholders to communicate their concerns with both creativity and emotion, during both the public workshops and the core team meetings. Visual and creative methods of communication had an important role in the second in-between space. The fuzziness of the space allowed stakeholders to explain their concerns on maps, using reference images, pitches, storytelling, and poems. Written arguments were also made, when the visual or creative methods failed to capture the accuracy of some perspectives. The fuzziness of the space also allowed the facilitator and the action researcher to experiment with new visual methods to capture the multi-value framework of the stakeholders.

A significant result was that entrepreneurial stakeholders and citizen stakeholders were able to build empathy for one another. During the initial stages of planning the second public workshop, entrepreneurial stakeholders wished to keep their relationship with the municipality project team separate from that of the citizens. This was because they had felt that their concerns were different, and that the interaction was not beneficial. Though the role of the citizen stakeholders were relatively minimised in the second public workshop, some entrepreneurs reflected on their position and appreciated the opportunity to find common ground (uncertainty), exchange perspectives, and expand their local network.

The second in-between space was more conducive for local stakeholders to offer their professional expertise. This expertise included both lived experience and professional knowledge or skills from other related domains (land development, engineering, architecture). However, this also meant that some skilled actors were able to advocate for specific themes. This means that the proportion of how much attention a theme received varied in both in-between spaces. For example, public transport infrastructure routes received more space for discussion in the second than in the first in-between space, because its impact was understood from citizen stakeholders with more experienced lenses.

Despite the above examples illustrating potential for transformative learning, various issues made collaboration a challenging exercise.

Firstly, the project manager had set up the studio process outside the institutional framework. This had consequences for project management due to the budget made available and the capacity of the facilitator and project team. This often led to miscommunication between the actors.

Secondly, the time it took (nine months since the municipal response) to set up the second in-between space also led to unrest and deepened distrust for the municipality amongst the citizens. The first in-between space additionally spanned roughly over a year. In the field of planning, such a timeline is relatively speedy for projects of this scale. However, it is notable that time duration is relative to different actors within the in-between spaces. The citizen stakeholders are particularly impacted by the prolonged uncertainty without the opportunity for professional detachment.

Thirdly, the fuzziness of the second in-between space that promoted inter-personal relationships across actor groups, paradoxically created situations where discussions became contentious, which made planning professionals uncomfortable. Such situations fall outside their expertise, and required actors like the facilitator and the project manager to use phronetic management skills to diffuse tense situations.

Fourth, in contrast with the first in-between space, where the citizen stakeholders collaborated internally within their associations to communicate their perspective, the second space played out differently. The core interests of the citizen stakeholders participating in the core team varied depending on their representative organisation or their own interests. In the interlude between the two in-between spaces, they had a common goal—the need for the second space. However, once that goal was achieved, their ability, capacity, and desire to maintain a coordinated front reduced.

Lastly, the municipal project team remained dissatisfied with the limited reach of the public workshops. The institutional framework that they operated under emphasised a link between legitimacy and demographic reach. They felt that a third workshop with young participants (teenagers) was critical before further analytical workshops were designed. Some citizens felt that this was a tactic to delegitimise their frames of meaning, however this was not the general opinion.

Despite the above-mentioned problems of the second in-between space, its inherent fuzzy nature also allowed the actors freedom to discuss them, re-establish trust, and adapt the programme of the process when needed. After the second public workshop took place, citizen stakeholders who were concerned about the legitimacy of the project could approach the facilitator, the project manager, and the action researcher with their concerns. It allowed the project manager to show evidence of legitimacy by describing how their comments were being used to make decisions for the public transportation routes in other spheres of municipal decision-making. It also allowed the facilitator and action researcher to reflect on methods, to reflect on how decisions were being communicated, and to re-evaluate the intended end output of the multi-value framework that was to be appended to the policy document. The facilitator played a key role in diffusing tensions. It was also apparent from the feedback of the citizen stakeholders that the use of visual and creative objects was not always successful because stakeholders needed to feel ownership over them.

The citizen stakeholders also recognised a need to meet independently of the core team meetings or individual conversations. A significant learning outcome in the meetings with the citizen stakeholders (outside of the core team) was that drawing together was a way to learn together (social learning) [60], and subsequently create joint meaning together. The city-lab studio programme was adapted to include additional on-street workshops organised by the citizen stakeholders and the project team, with the ambition to draw and learn together on-site. These were proposed to take place parallel to the last remaining public workshop of the city-lab programme. Considering the negative impact of the existing budgetary and capacity constraints, the outcome of this addition to the programme remains to be seen.

4. Discussion

There are three significant insights that can be drawn from the results. Firstly, that there are favourable and unfavourable elements of both in-between spaces for communication of meaning. The way the boundaries of in-between spaces are “fixed” can have consequences for meaningful collaboration and the potential for congruent frames. A fuzzier boundary has more meaningful outcomes than an instrumental boundary, though methodological plurality is key. Secondly, the frames of meaning that the planning professionals and the local stakeholders used to discuss topics like liveability, green spaces, and sustainability are contested. However, there is potential to turn this contested meaning into positive outcomes. Thirdly, the analysis of both spaces offers insights into the methods and the role of actors needed to facilitate or maintain meaningful collaboration.

4.1. Collaboration within In-between Spaces Created in Participatory Planning Projects

Despite the limitations of the statutory procedure, the first in-between space allowed the citizens to reflect and renew their positive association with (their existing) surrounding environment and articulate what they wanted for their future and for generations to come. It also led to collaboration between individuals to collectively make joint statements (visions and manifestos). The procedure had a wider reach than those who may have physical or time constraints to contribute in-person. The written format was partially suited to those who had the intellectual capacity to process a long document and make clear counter arguments. Others could appropriate it by using poetic expression or linguistic means to share emotion. However, there were limitations for the format to fully capture the emotional links to the city, which were more visible in the second space. Ultimately, the written format had both positive and negative characteristics, which indicates a need for methodological plurality.

The statutory framework also reinforced the boundaries of the planning professionals’ expertise, by allowing the municipal project team time to reflect on the comments and give deliberate answers. While this was perceived unfavourably by the local stakeholders because they did not have the opportunity to exchange arguments, the space shielded the professionals from contentious discussions by helping maintain the boundaries of their expertise. However, it did not offer space for them to exercise or develop expertise in fostering collaboration or in creating congruent meaning with other actors outside their immediate network.

The first in-between space fostered the partial creation of congruent frames across different sets of actors by highlighting contested meanings around sustainability. It also partially fostered meaningful collaboration by allowing stakeholders to articulate their values and develop new appreciation for their current living environment.

In contrast, the boundaries of the second in-between space were fuzzier [59]. This meant that citizen stakeholders were able to interact and develop a relationship with the municipal project team. Both the core team meetings and the public workshops allowed for actors to develop these relationships outside of their immediate network. This allowed actors to recognise the values and needs of other actors, and communicate meaning through these specific frames. The municipal project team saw that citizen stakeholders were unable to recognise the “soul” of their current living environment in the policy document, and they were open to an appendix to the policy document that captured the multi-value framework of the local stakeholders, in order to address this problem. Similarly, the citizen stakeholders were able to understand the concerns of the project team regarding the prolonged timeline. This space also allowed planning professionals to experience the emotional connections that local citizens have with the city that could be severed during urban redevelopment. However, the fuzziness also made the second in-between space laden with uncertainty regarding roles and responsibilities. The facilitator played a key role in using phronetic management, repeatedly reinforcing and reiterating the ground rules set at the start of the project.

In addition, the fuzziness of the second in-between space disrupted the expertise of the planning professionals. This disruptive nature meant that planning professionals had the opportunity to learn from the discomfort and embrace a new collaborative persona.

The space also gave more room for the use of visual and creative methods to make contested meanings of sustainability by highlighting contradictions between policy and their spatial implications (elaborated in Section 4.3).

To conclude (See

Table 2. Comparison between the two in-between spaces.

	First In-between Space	Second In-between Space
Boundaries of in-between space	Created by the publication of the policy document and facilitated by the statutory framework for participation.	Created by the citizens and the project manager’s capacity for phronetic management (leading attitudes), and fostered by the facilitator (learning attitudes)
Type of participatory process	Instrumental.	Deliberative, co-creative.
Methods	Written (policy document, comments) and visual references. Appropriate for some to share emotions using creative or linguistic means.	Use of written, and visual methods both in the workshops and the core team to share emotional links with the living–working environment.
Phronetic management	Citizen stakeholders and the project manager exert pressure on the existing statutory framework by balancing leadership attitudes.	Exhibited by the project manager and the facilitator, exhibiting a learning attitude to maintain the integrity of the space.
Transformative (learning)	Contested meanings over sustainability were made visible, but learning was limited to the boundaries of the actor groups. The need to disrupt the process set up by the statutory framework was a significant learning outcome.	Contested meanings over sustainable development were visibly discussed outside the boundaries of the actor groups, and was more apparent through visuals, mapping, and storytelling (pitches).
Construction of congruent frames	Partially. Citizen stakeholders were able coordinate their efforts to articulate their values and their vision for their future city.	Partially. Stakeholders and the municipal project team were able to empathise with each other’s frames.
Meaningful collaboration (positive associations with the city, processes, and actors)	Partially. Space to articulate values and make positive associations with the existing city and the desired future redevelopment, and to strengthen the connection with other stakeholders within their network.	Partially. Space to articulate values and make positive associations with the existing city and the desired future redevelopment, and to strengthen connection with other stakeholders outside their immediate network.

), the manner in which the in-between space is created has consequences for the development of interdependencies between actors, which is an important aspect to address the inter-linkages of urban sustainability challenges.

4.2. Contested Frames of Meaning and Implications on the In-between Space

The contradictions and dilemmas of urban sustainability played out empirically in the brownfield redevelopment project in two ways. This is illustrated through the concerns about the green space in the city.

Firstly, this was observed through the competing values of the different actors. The data illustrates the citizens’ frames of meaning while imagining the sustainable redevelopment of the brownfield area, which was linked to their personal or cultural values, their lived experience, and their own professional backgrounds. In contrast, the frames of the planning professionals were linked to their institutional frames. Due to these differences, citizens who valued urban ecology could not recognise its importance in the policy document because the municipality’s priority (for sustainable development) emphasized a new mobility paradigm (less dependency on cars) leading to new mobility routes disrupting existing green spaces.

Secondly, there are inherent contradictions in the municipality’s own vision for a “humane metropolis” [48]. Despite the strategic goal for rigorous greening, a dense living–work environment inherently puts pressure on the existing ecological and recreational green spaces. Balikçi et al. [61] have calculated that urban development in Amsterdam has led to a 4.7% loss of green space, to a 15.7% per capita decrease over a period of 10 years, and to more fragmented green spaces. While Amsterdam has favourable conditions (governance structure, high percentage of municipal owned land) for the protection of green space, this paradox is partly because densification is calculated using population and area metrics, which do not accurately depict the pressure on green spaces from densification [61]. However, this is more visible from the citizen stakeholders’ frames of meaning. These contradictions can be made visible by the interaction of policy at various levels of government and their representation on geographical space. While there are different solutions that can be drawn from such an example (more dimensions to calculate and define green space or stronger green policies) [61], the more significant takeaway is that in-between spaces can reveal the negative spatial impacts of such contradictions when professional expertise and expertise from the lived street-view are given space to create congruent meanings. This is not only relevant to finding solutions for sustainable development, but also relevant to defining the problem.

This illustrates a need for well-designed in-between spaces that can potentially scrutinize these contradictions and lead to, as an example, the protection of green spaces from reduction and fragmentation. The long drawn-out time frame of urban planning projects mean that planning professionals may be hyperopic to the contradictions that play out on the ground, and local stakeholders may be myopic to the long-term consequences of the status quo [62]. This also illustrates the added complexity of the role of actors using phronetic management to set up and maintain disruptive in-between spaces. The underlying principles of phronetic management require a learning and leading attitude while balancing particular needs with those of the common good [11]. The contested nature of sustainable meanings makes the “common good” difficult to grasp. When these contested meanings are not made visible, they can lead to tension and distrust, which can be a barrier for transformative learning [63].

There is, however, a brighter side to these contested meanings. The multiple interpretations of sustainable development, when appropriated by actors using phronetic management, can lead to congruent frames between actors. This ambiguity has been described as a necessary shift from misleading concrete categorisations [64] and offers the opportunity to draw out meaning depending on references to space and time [65]. The ambiguity is similar to what Pinch and Bijker describe as interpretive flexibility [66]. The next subsection looks at how methods and practices can embrace the ambiguity created by sustainable development and their potential in leading to congruent frames.

4.3. Methods and Practices for Fostering Ambiguity within In-between Spaces

This sub-section discusses the methods and practices used by actors to communicate meaning in the two in-between spaces.

The first in-between space allowed for the communication of meaning in the form of a policy document and textual responses from stakeholders. This mode of communication has a different impact on the different actors. As suggested in Section 4.1, this mode allowed the municipality to assert their professional expertise through complex legal explanations and technical maps, but, in doing so, they also framed the role of the stakeholders, especially the citizens, as the non-experts. This also limited the municipality’s own intention for how the original policy document was to be used. The project manager had perceived that it would contain the ambitions of the municipality but with the flexibility to be filled with perspectives from stakeholders.

The instrumental nature of the first in-between space made this desire for flexibility challenging. However, the citizen stakeholders had three avenues to adapting to this medium, by—(a) coordinating themselves to present a joint and stronger voice, (b) mirroring the municipality’s professional expertise with their own professional expertise from other or similar domains, and (c) using creative expression or visual imagery from local contexts to share their frames. The entrepreneurial stakeholders also adapted to this form by mirroring the municipality’s professional expertise and countering the policy document with questions and alternative proposals. Additionally, the municipality had shared their ambitions through examples of international cities and renderings, but the citizen stakeholders could not relate to these examples because they did not fit in with their own perception of their living environment. They preferred to share relatable examples of local narratives or designs from the Netherlands.

The second in-between space was comparatively fuzzier and less rigid. This allowed different actors to adapt personas and use communication methods beyond what was expected of them. The municipal project team could shed their role as experts and share their concerns about the uncertainties prevalent at the early stages of urban planning projects. This also created more space for the flexibility to fill in the policy document’s ambitions with local perspectives. The second in-between space allowed local stakeholders to better articulate their perspectives in the core team meetings and the public workshops by creatively using poems, stories, pitches, photographs, and mental maps. It simultaneously offered flexibility for the citizen stakeholders to offer written arguments when they found oral or visual methods did not sufficiently address their needs. For the entrepreneurial stakeholders, the space gave them the opportunity to use storytelling (in the form of pitches) to add nuance to their role as innovators and proponents of the economy, by sharing their concerns about the changes from the redevelopment plans. While both in-between spaces similarly allowed stakeholders to share ideas about concerns and preferred futures, the second in-between space allowed actors to additionally broaden their network and be inspired by one another.

The second in-between space was, in theory, well-suited to developing more experimental approaches to visual expression, but, in practice, the distrust and capacity constraints within the project made this difficult to explore. A clear conclusion that could be drawn from the empirical data of both spaces was that stakeholders need to have ownership over the output of the creative process. This leads to drawing two significant conclusions for in-between spaces, (a) the need for methodological plurality to accommodate different modes of expression (both technical and human), and (b) that visual (maps, images) or textual narratives (policies) need to be adaptable by or relatable to the audience.

This bridges the next question: what is the role of actors using phronetic principles to maintain these spaces? As described earlier, phronetic management is used by actors with a leading and learning attitude to change institutional structures. Actors from the municipality, the stakeholders, and the facilitators all exhibit (partial) skills of phronetic management. The diverse use of phronetic principles by different actors (not just one person) is needed to foster such in-between spaces. Some citizen stakeholders and the project manager used phronetic management by exhibiting leading attitudes to disrupt existing structures, while others like the facilitator used a learning attitude to understand different needs and to adapt the space to strengthen the conditions for meaningful collaboration.

In order to create spaces where ambiguity (as suggested in Section 4.2) can be embraced and operationalised for the creation of congruent frames, actors tasked with phronetic management need to be able to effectively use storytelling while fixing the boundaries and maintaining these in-between spaces. According to Polletta, ambiguity in stories can be a more powerful resource than other media, like reports, arguments, or descriptions, because they offer room for multiple interpretations [67]. This form of communication can lead to more solidarity, diffuse opposition, offer legitimacy, and create room for more stories. This can also allow for diverse meanings to coexist as opposed to being contested. The use of visuals can contribute an additional dimension as a tool for co-creation of congruent meaning, as suggested by Metze [68]. Visual storytelling not only has a wider reach, but it also puts forward a concrete idea that can be either adapted by actors or supplanted with an alternative. However, both authors suggest a need to balance accuracy and details with the necessary ambiguity, which requires further scrutiny.

5. Conclusions

This article illustrates, from a grounded perspective, the inherent difficulties of meaningful collaboration between local stakeholders and planning professionals to find congruent meaning as to “what needs to be sustained?” for urban sustainability. There are three main conclusions: (a) well-designed in-between spaces, with fuzzy boundaries (though disruptive and uncomfortable) and methodological plurality, can create mutual interdependencies between actors and foster transformative learning through the creation of new learning networks; (b) such in-between spaces can be used to foster congruent meanings for the problem definition, “what needs to be sustained?”, and contested meaning can be potentially translated into a constructive tool to sustain urban ecosystems for future generations; and (c) visual and creative methods are a powerful tool that can be used by action researchers to support multiple actors using phronetic management, as long as the participants feel ownership over the creative process and the resulting output. This article offers additional questions for further enquiry:

• How can actors use creative and visual methods to set up and manage these in-between spaces in urban sustainability-driven projects?
• How can creative and visual methods be developed to support meaningful collaboration within in-between spaces while ensuring the actors involved feel ownership over the resulting object(s) or output(s)?
• What are the limitations of creative and visual methods for collaborative communication?
• How can action researchers offer support for the innovation of new methods for sustainability-driven projects that have underlying uncertainties and mistrust?

To conclude, well-designed in-between spaces can be used for collaborative communication and to translate contested meanings into congruent frames by offering conditions for learning through interaction. While the fuzziness of such a space may lead to discomfort for the actors, it gives room for this discomfort to be transcended. However, the legitimacy of such a space should not be determined by the demographic reach, but rather by its capacity to create congruent meanings by highlighting contradictions from contested topics in sustainable urban development. Democratic legitimacy in participatory processes can be achieved through other means, like deliberative citizen councils. Hence, a plurality of processes is needed to communicate for meaningful collaboration in urban sustainable development projects.