Small-Scale Hybrid Participation and Heat Mitigation Measures by Active Bottom Surface Cooling—Need for an Integrated Framework to Improve Well-Being

Abstract

Rising urban temperatures due to climate change, limited green spaces, and dense urban areas impact public health and human well-being, highlighting the need for innovative grey infrastructure solutions where conventional green spaces are not feasible. This study aims to bridge the gap between objectively measured and perceived benefits of urban heat mitigation by combining social and technological methods within socio-ecological systems. First, a literature review of 759 articles, with 64 meeting the review criteria, and a bibliometric analysis examined the recent extensive research on participation and the connections between participation, resilience, and sustainability. Second, a chain of evidence as a qualitative method demonstrated how Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC) can enhance outdoor thermal comfort (OTC). This emphasised the importance of participatory innovation and novel cooling technologies for urban resilience: hybrid (digital and analogue) participation can raise the awareness, acceptance, and effectiveness of such technical innovations. It revealed the need for an integrated framework, leveraging synergies: (1) community engagement tailors solutions to urban needs, (2) adaptability ensures effectiveness across diverse settings, (3) improved thermal comfort enhances citizen well-being, and (4) resilience strengthens the climate change response. By conceptualising cities as urban systems, the integrated framework fosters reciprocal socio-ecological benefits between people, nature, and the environment. Through hybrid participation and ABSC, it boosts community engagement, OTC, and well-being for sustainable urban development.

1. Introduction and Theoretical Background

1.1. Current Situation and Problem Definition

Urbanisation is increasing rapidly, with 56% of the global population currently living in cities, expected to rise to over two-thirds by 2050 [1]. As urban populations grow, the effects of climate change are becoming more concentrated in these dense environments. Cities must reduce their ecological footprint while enhancing resilience across infrastructures, ecosystems, and social systems. Recent data underline the urgency of climate action: greenhouse gas emissions are at an all-time high [2], biodiversity loss is accelerating, with one-third of species in Germany endangered [3], Switzerland lost 10% of its glacier volume between 2022 and 2023 [4], and Europe experienced record-breaking heat in 2024 [5], marking the hottest summer on record [6]. These developments intensify outdoor heat stress, strain public health systems, and lead to a decay of well-being, particularly for vulnerable groups [7,8,9,10,11]. The lack of green spaces further exacerbates these impacts by limiting opportunities for physical and mental recovery [12]. Urban overheating leads to serious health risks, including dehydration, cardiovascular and neurological illnesses, and increasing mortality rates [13,14,15,16,17]. Heat exposure also affects brain development [18] and mental health [19], particularly during early childhood [20]. Beyond health, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has deepened social inequalities and vulnerabilities to climate extremes [21], highlighting the urgent need for transformation in how cities are planned and governed [22]. To support climate resilience, cities must embrace inclusive and adaptive strategies that integrate environmental, social, and technological dimensions. Transdisciplinary and participatory approaches are increasingly seen as crucial for fostering effective planning, public acceptance [23,24], and health research [25].

Cities are dynamic socio-ecological systems shaped by the interaction of human and nonhuman organisms with natural and built environments [26], integrating ecological, social, and physical factors [27]. The concept of ecological resilience—defined by Holling (1973) as the ability of systems to maintain core functions under external stress [28]—is essential here. Building on this, “ecology with the city” views urban areas as co-created systems shaped by both physical and social processes [29]. Accordingly, sustainable urban transformation requires integrating local knowledge, community engagement, and scientific insight into practical and inclusive planning, as shown in Figure 1.

1.2. Theoretical Background

Urban resilience depends not only on technical solutions but also on inclusive and context-sensitive participation. Traditional models, such as Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation [30], have been influential in defining levels of engagement, from tokenistic information to genuine power sharing. In contrast, newer approaches advocate for participation as a process of social learning, where no single actor holds complete knowledge and solutions emerge through collaboration [31]. This shift in perspective acknowledges that adaptive responses to climate challenges require shared understanding [32,33,34], decentralised governance [35], and experimental planning cultures [36].

Hybrid participation formats, combining digital and analogue methods, have proven particularly effective in fostering inclusivity [37,38] by integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches [39]. While digital tools enhance reach and efficiency, analogue formats remain essential for involving groups with limited digital access [40,41]. The combination enables broad participation and co-creation across diverse urban populations [42,43]. Neighbourhood-level engagement, such as urban living labs and small-scale interventions, promotes direct collaboration [44], enabling citizens to test, evaluate, and shape their urban environments [45,46]. These methods allow for experimentation and feedback in real contexts, improving both acceptance and quality of practical solutions [47,48]. Hybrid approaches offer platforms for dynamic, collaborative planning and decision-making [49] and empower citizens to actively shape their cities [50] while addressing heat mitigation and urban liveability.

Nature-based solutions (NBSs), such as urban greening and green facades, are central to urban cooling efforts [51,52], complemented by technical solutions like sun sails [53] or improved albedo [54,55,56]. Yet, these approaches face two key constraints: (1) airflow interference—dense vegetation may reduce wind speed [57,58] and increase pollutant concentration [59,60], and (2) land use competition—in dense cities, space for trees and green infrastructure is limited due to competing priorities [61]. To overcome these constraints, technical solutions, such as Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC), are gaining relevance. This method involves targeted cooling of sealed surfaces to improve outdoor thermal comfort (OTC), particularly in areas where NBSs are unfeasible. Studies confirm a strong link between surface temperature, radiant heat, and thermal comfort [62,63,64]. For effective deployment, all core parameters of OTC (air temperature, humidity, radiation, and wind velocity) must be evaluated at the pedestrian level [30,31].

1.3. The Need for an Integrated Socio-Ecological Approach

Green infrastructure improves health, biodiversity, and thermal comfort [65,66,67]. However, in densely built environments, its implementation is often limited [68,69,70,71]. Thus, there is a growing need to integrate technical innovations with participatory approaches to create effective and context-specific climate adaptation strategies. Combining hybrid participation with active cooling technologies offers a promising way forward. Participatory tools, like living labs and digital twins, empower citizens to engage in planning [72,73], while technical innovations address the physical aspects of the urban heat island (UHI) effect [74,75]. This dual strategy supports urban resilience through inclusive governance and improved microclimates, ultimately enhancing well-being. Alongside objective indicators, like the Physiological equivalent temperature (PET) or Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) [51,76], subjective well-being is increasingly recognised as a key measure of the success and acceptance of climate adaptation measures. Understanding how individuals perceive and experience thermal comfort is essential for creating solutions that are not only effective but also widely supported.

This paper proposes an integrated socio-ecological framework that links hybrid participation with heat mitigation via ABSC. These two strategies offer complementary benefits: one focuses on inclusive engagement, the other on physical intervention. A key challenge is the gap between measurable impacts (e.g., improved UTCI) and public perception of effectiveness [77,78]. Participation can bridge this gap by involving communities in evaluation and co-creation, fostering ownership and deeper understanding [79]. Urban living labs serve as ideal testbeds for this approach, offering platforms for experimentation, dialogue, and learning [80]. Hybrid formats support communication and knowledge transfer, enhancing understanding of technical concepts like thermal comfort and urban cooling. The integrated framework (Figure 2) considers socio-ecological interactions between social and technical systems, addresses land use competition, and promotes adaptive, citizen-centred climate planning. It aims to improve urban resilience and well-being through inclusive, evidence-based, and technologically supported solutions [81].

Building on this foundation, the central research question of this study is: What novel approaches foster the implementation of innovative urban climate adaptation measures to improve well-being, on the premise of community engagement? This study understands hybrid participation as a tool to translate technical innovations—such as ABSC—into accessible information for citizens, leading to a social research strand (community engagement with citizens) and an ecological research strand (urban climate adaptation measures through technical innovation).

2. Methodology

To explore the scientific foundations for an integrated socio-ecological framework—linking hybrid participation with urban heat mitigation via ABSC—a three-step methodology was applied. First, a literature review with bibliometric analysis investigated current research on hybrid participation. Second, a chain of evidence was developed to assess the functionality and relevance of the new technology of Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC) as a climate adaptation measure. Third, key synergies between participatory approaches and technological innovation were identified to support integrated conclusions.

2.1. Literature Review

(1) 

Keyword Selection

The selected keywords for the search were grouped into six main categories in standard search strings, using Boolean operators to address the review question of examining recent, extensive research on participation: (a) size and time, (b) methodology, (c) city, (d) participation formats, (e) resilience types, and (f) resilience. These terms align with core concepts used in prior studies to characterise various participation and resilience models. The review applied a comprehensive search strategy, combining terms from categories (a)–(d) with those from (e)–(f) in all possible configurations, as outlined in

Table 1. Keywords used for article search in the Web of Science (WoS) database.

(f) Resilience	(e) Resilience Types	Boolean Operator	(d) Participation Formats	(c) City	(b) Methodology	(a) Size, Time	Boolean Operator
resilien*	urban soci* ecology* soci* ecology* communit* climat*	AND	living lab*	urban	hybrid digital analog*	*temporar* small mini micro	OR
			real world lab *
			learning lab *
			transition lab*
			change lab*
			transformat*
			lab*
			participat*
			intervent*
			experiment*

The asterisk (*) serves as a placeholder, allowing the search to include all variations and extensions of the word.

.

(2) 

Relevant Literature Screening

Following PRISMA guidelines, an initial search in the Web of Science (WoS) database targeted the 30 most relevant reviews from 2020 to 2024 and high-impact publications across all years. This yielded 754 records, supplemented by 5 more through snowballing (identifying other publications by using a paper’s reference list or citations to increase information, achieve more realistic results, and cover all relevant research), resulting in 737 records for screening. Of these, 430 records were excluded due to thematic misalignment. The remaining 307 records were screened by title, abstract, and conclusion, and 243 were then excluded for focusing on unrelated contexts: health without reference to urban planning (e.g., emotional symptomatology), participation with a specific target group or technology or context (e.g., victims of forced displacement, deep learning, women in agriculture), resilience in other context (e.g., resilient agricultural production systems), other time or topic (e.g., Late Antique Little Ice Age, community-based tourism), other ecosystem (e.g., marine ecosystem, apple orchards), other or specific location (e.g., Governance Guide for Urbanisation Processes in East China, rural Tanzania), other language (e.g., Spanish), or other publication type (e.g., book review, editorial, review). The final dataset was included, as illustrated in Figure 3.

(3) 

Data Collection

Full-text analysis was conducted on the selected studies. Data were categorised into four thematic clusters: (1) health, well-being, and quality of life (4 studies), (2) participation, living labs, and interventions (39 studies), (3) urban and socio-ecological resilience (36 studies), and (4) NBS and biodiversity (12 studies). Out of the 64 included studies, 24 addressed more than 1 theme, indicating reciprocal relationships. Full details are provided in Appendix A (

Table A1. Summary table of all 64 documents, addressing thematic fields: (1) health, well-being, and quality of life, (2) participation, living labs, and interventions, (3) urban resilience and socio-ecological resilience, and (4) NBS and biodiversity. Out of the 64 included studies, 24 deal with more than 1 thematic field, showing reciprocal relationships.

Thematic Fields	Journal	Year	First Author	No.
1	Ecosphere	2012	Kudryavtsev et al. * [75]	1
2	CoDesign—International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts	2024	Belfield and Petrescu [122]	2
	IEEE Access	2024	Popescul et al. [117]	3
	Australian Planner	2023	Jarman and Stratford [132]	4
	Sustainability	2022	Olivares-Rodriguez et al. [131]	5
	Gateways— International Journal of Community Research and Engagement	2022	Sitas et al. [90]	6
	Land Use Policy	2023	Afacan [80]	7
	Urban Planning	2022	Petrescu et al. [44]	8
	Climate Services	2021	Neset et al. [123]	9
	Raumforschung und Raumordnung—Spatial Research and Planning	2021	Ziehl [112]	10
	Smart Cities	2021	Rehm et al. [129]	11
	Ecology and Society	2020	Ungar et al. [125]	12
	Sustainability Science	2018	Frantzeskaki et al. [74]	13
	Sustainability Science	2018	Wamsler et al. [100]	14
	Environmental Science & Policy	2016	Crowe et al. [119]	15
	Technology Innovation Management Review	2012	Mulder * [137]	16
3	Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft	2024	Kochskämper [136]	17
	Heliyon	2024	Lv and Sarker [103]	18
	Cities	2023	Dai et al. [85]	19
	Natural Hazards Review	2023	Sharma et al. [157]	20
	Land	2022	Ricart et al. [84]	21
	Habitat International	2022	Fraser and Naquin [106]	22
	Regional Studies	2023	Pitidis et al. [101]	23
	Environment and Planning B—Urban Analytics and City Science	2022	Chondrogianni and Stephanedes [86]	24
	Town Planning Review	2022	Greiving and Fleischhauer [83]	25
	Sustainability	2020	Larimian et al. [107]	26
	Public Health Reports	2020	Slemp et al. [108]	27
	Sustainability	2020	Salizzoni et al. [120]	28
	Contemporary Security Policy	2020	Chandler [95]	29
	European Planning Studies	2019	von Wirth * [138]	30
	Environmental Science & Policy	2016	Tyler et al. [94]	31
	Urban Studies	2015	Boyd and Juhola [91]	32
	Journal of Cleaner Production	2013	Ryan [134]	33
	Climate and Development	2012	Tyler and Moench * [93]	34
	Ecology and Society	2010	Gunderson [96]	35
	Environmental Hazards—Human and Policy Dimensions	2009	Collier et al. [92]	36
4	Urban Geography	2024	Van Neste et al. [22]	37
	Cities	2024	Battisti et al. [113]	38
	Sustainability	2020	Zingraff-Hamed et al. [127]	39
	Frontiers in Sustainable Cities	2020	O’Sullivan et al. [133]	40
1, 2	Health and Place	2024	Breton-Carbonneau et al. [87]	41
1, 3, 4	Journal of Forestry Research	2023	Konijnendijk * [114]	42
1, 4	Sustainability	2021	Lehmann [65]	43
2, 3	Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology	2024	Gatti and Procentese [110]	44
	Buildings	2024	Robazza et al. [109]	45
	Local Environment—The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability	2024	Daniel and Fernandes [124]	46
	Frontiers in Computer Science	2024	Champlin et al. [98]	47
	Research in Dance Education	2023	Pellitero and Belil [111]	48
	Frontiers in Built Environment	2023	Sutley and Lyles [105]	49
	Habitat International	2023	Visconti [115]	50
	Sustainability	2023	Hölsgens et al. [139]	51
	Sustainable Cities and Society	2022	Mahajan et al. [104]	52
	Town Planning Review	2022	Sieber et al. [135]	53
	Critical and Radical Social Work	2021	Larkins et al. [89]	54
	Landscape Architecture Frontiers	2019	Zingraff-Hamed et al. [97]	55
	European Journal of Sustainable Development	2019	Elewa [99]	56
	American Behavioral Scientist	2015	Pfefferbaum et al. [121]	57
2, 3, 4	Urban Forestry & Urban Greening	2023	Maurer et al. [130]	58
	Journal of Environmental Management	2019	van der Jagt et al. [118]	59
2, 4	TeMA—Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment	2024	Scheiber and Mifsud [128]	60
	Environmental Development	2024	Bhatta et al. [116]	61
	Annals of the American Association of Geographers	2023	Tozer et al. [102]	62
	Environmental Science & Policy	2023	Snep et al. [88]	63
	Resources	2020	DeLosRios-White et al. [126]	64

* Records added by the author by the snowball method.

).

(4) 

Data Processing

To visualise thematic relationships, multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) using VOSviewer version 1.6.20 was applied. VOSviewer is a software for creating and visualising bibliometric networks, which analyses and graphically displays relationships between scientific publications, authors, or terms [82]. The clustered keywords (a) were summarised into key statements (b), linked through logical cross-sections (c), and mapped into research pathways (d). From these, a synthesis (e) was developed to form a hypothesis for an integrated socio-ecological approach to urban resilience.

2.2. Chain of Evidence: Heat Mitigation by Cooling Bottom Surfaces Actively

The methodology applied in this study followed a conceptual approach aimed at outlining and systematizing the theoretical foundations of Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC). It was designed to examine the functionality and integration of the technology within the broader context of urban climate adaptation. For this, a chain of evidence was developed, providing the logic behind the technology. This conceptual methodology was based on a qualitative evaluation of interdisciplinary literature from environmental science, urban climatology, thermal engineering, and infrastructure planning. For the consideration, UTCI was identified as a dimension to contextualise the new application of ABSC. The approach drew from established scientific frameworks and technical literature to develop a structured overview of the relevant physical processes and system components.

The method involved a stepwise examination of the environmental variables influencing outdoor thermal conditions, the technical principles of heat transfer through pavement-embedded piping systems, and the potential systemic roles such technologies could play in urban settings. These elements are methodologically connected in a way that allowed for an integrated theoretical perspective on the feasibility and relevance of ABSC.

Figure 4 illustrates this conceptual chain of evidence by presenting a structured overview of the factors and effects related to outdoor thermal comfort and ABSC. It is organized into three horizontal layers, ‘Influencing Factors’, ‘Thermal Impact’, and ‘Benefits’, and two vertical domains: the human and the technical. On the human side, the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) was influenced by parameters such as clothing factor, air temperature, humidity, wind velocity, and radiation, with radiation emphasized as a critical variable. These factors determine outdoor thermal comfort, which in turn contributes to human well-being. On the technical side, the application of ABSC led to effects such as reduced vortex formation and lower surface temperatures. The relationships between those layers and domains were explained by the chain of evidence.

Overall, the study employed a non-empirical, theory-driven methodology that aims to conceptually position ABSC as a potential climate adaptation measure, grounded in the logical structure outlined in Figure 4. It is an example for a technical invention that needs to be communicated with citizens.

2.3. Key Synergies

Findings from the literature review about hybrid participation (2.1) and conceptual analysis of ABSC (2.2) were synthesised to identify key synergies. These insights informed the development of an integrated framework linking participatory urban planning with technological solutions for heat mitigation. The resulting conclusions highlight the potential of hybrid participation formats—combining analogue and digital tools—to support the local implementation and social acceptance of innovative cooling systems, such as ABSC.

3. Literature Review: The Different Formats of Participation and Why to Make It Hybrid

Based on a review of 64 key publications, (1) a bibliometric analysis was carried out to identify major research clusters. This analysis informed (2) developing key statements, (3) defining research pathways, and (4) deriving a synthesis of findings (Figure 5).

(1) Form clusters using bibliometric analysis: The bibliometric analysis revealed a strong link between participation and resilience, underlining the central role of socio-ecological systems and their interdependent dynamics. These insights justify the development of an integrated framework that merges hybrid participation methods with climate adaptation, particularly heat mitigation. Keywords were categorised into thematic clusters by the authors.

(2) Develop key statements: The thematic clusters led to four key statements, as illustrated in Figure 6:

• Urban resilience: Urban space, climate-resilient communities, and social justice in socio-ecological systems (clusters I and II).
• Citizen-centred bottom-up approach: Policies for co-creative knowledge creation for climate adaptation and urban resilience through nature-based solutions (cluster III).
• Hybrid participation: Sustainable management and participatory innovation to promote social resilience and adaptability in risk systems (cluster IV).
• Temporary small-scale interventions: Living labs as a test bed for climate change adaptation and equitable governance for urban resilience (cluster V).

(3) Define research pathways: The analysis revealed four interconnected research strands: (1) health, well-being, and quality of life as key drivers for adaptation (4 studies), (2) urban and socio-ecological resilience, prominently featured across the literature (36 studies), (3) NBSs that support biodiversity and ecosystem health (12 studies), and (4) participatory approaches, including living labs and interventions, as mechanisms to foster engagement (39 studies). Many publications (24 out of 64) addressed multiple themes, reinforcing the systemic reciprocal relationships between these dimensions.

(4) Derive synthesis: The synthesis yielded two main conclusions: First, urban resilience can be enhanced through a bottom-up, citizen-focused strategy that integrates hybrid participation and small-scale, temporary interventions. Second, the thematic clusters are interrelated, forming an iterative cycle that reduces vulnerability and builds adaptive capacity. These relationships are visualised in Figure 7, which outlines how such a process can foster long-term resilience.

3.1. Urban Resilience: Urban Space, Climate-Resilient Communities, and Social Justice in Socio-Ecological Systems

This section explores how socio-ecological systems can enhance health, well-being, and urban resilience. It underscores the role of nature for health and well-being (4 studies) and emphasises the urgency of addressing social and environmental injustices in urban planning (7 studies). Participation and accessible public spaces are highlighted as key drivers of adaptive capacity (13 studies). Furthermore, it shows the importance of community engagement and robust governance in fostering equitable, resilient urban environments through participatory design (8 studies) (

Table 2. Drivers for urban resilience in socio-ecological systems, identified in the selected publications.

Urban Resilience (n = 29)		Authors
importance of nature for health and well-being (n = 4)		Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2022 [83], Ricart et al., 2022 [84], Dai et al., 2023 [85], Chondrogianni and Stephanedes, 2022 [86]
need of social and environmental justice (n = 7)		Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2022 [83], Ricart et al., 2022 [84], Van Neste et al., 2024 [22], Lehmann, 2021 [65], Breton-Carbonneau et al., 2024 [87], Snep et al., 2023 [88], Larkins et al., 2021 [89], Sitas et al., 2022 [90]
role of participation and public spaces (n = 13)	participatory and adaptive approaches (n = 5)	Boyd and Juhola, 2015 [91], Collier et al., 2009 [92], Tyler and Moench, 2012 [93], Tyler et al., 2016 [94], Chandler, 2020 [95]
	socio-ecological and place-based resilience (n = 4)	Afacan, 2023 [80], Gunderson, 2010 [96], Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2019 [97], Champlin et al., 2024 [98]
	role of public spaces (n = 4)	Frantzeskaki et al., 2018 [74] Kudryavtsev et al., 2012 [75], Petrescu et al., 2022 [44], Elewa, 2019 [99]
community engagement and governance (n = 8)	community engagement and social resilience (n = 4)	Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2022 [83], Breton-Carbonneau et al., 2024 [87], Wamsler et al., 2018 [100], Pitidis et al., 2023 [101]
	urban planning and resilience narratives (n = 2)	Tozer et al., 2023 [102], Lv and Sarker, 2024 [103]
	multi-stakeholder governance (n = 1)	Mahajan et al., 2022 [104]
	information and knowledge (n = 1)	Sutley and Lyles, 2023 [105]

).

Since 2008, climate adaptation has been central to urban planning, requiring collaboration between science, practice, and the public [83]. Successful adaptation strategies mitigate climate risks, conserve biodiversity, and enhance urban resilience [84]. Green infrastructure contributes to well-being by reducing stress, supporting mental health, and bolstering climate responsiveness [85,86].

However, these advantages are not equitably shared. Climate change tends to deepen existing social inequalities [83], with marginalised groups facing heightened exposure to risks, such as climate gentrification [87]. Although inner-city redevelopment offers potential, the revitalisation of brownfield sites [65] and investment in social infrastructure [22] are often overlooked. In dense urban environments, adaptable strategies and inclusive participation are essential to ensure public spaces remain accessible and socially cohesive [84,88]. Young people—whose resilience is influenced by their experiences and systemic inequalities—are frequently excluded from planning processes [89]. Enhancing their climate literacy could significantly improve local adaptation efforts and contribute to long-term resilience [90].

Resilient urban systems convert climate-related challenges into opportunities by adopting participatory and innovative approaches that recognise socio-ecological interdependencies [91]. The Urban Resilience Framework [93] identifies key indicators through inclusive processes, integrating vulnerable populations and considering infrastructure, governance, and institutional characteristics, such as flexibility and decision-making [94]. Building social resilience demands capacity building and attention to the underlying causes of vulnerability [95]. Effective adaptation strategies must integrate disaster risk reduction with participatory research tailored to local contexts [92]. Creative solutions that connect human behaviours with ecosystem dynamics enhance disaster response capacities [96], while decentralised, integrative planning strengthens resilience at the local scale [97]. Dynamic interactions between citizens and their environment shape future developments, highlighting the need to compile practical solutions [80] and socio-ecological knowledge into knowledge banks for urban resilience [98]. Well-designed, accessible public spaces contribute to community sustainability, enhance quality of life, and support participatory resilience initiatives [99]. Shared spaces counteract gentrification and promote social justice [44], while a strong sense of place strengthens social cohesion [74,75].

Active community engagement is essential for resilience [105], while mindfulness enhances well-being, sustainable behaviour, and social justice [100]. Citizen participation also plays a critical role in translating scientific knowledge into practical solutions [83], particularly in addressing climate-related health issues and empowering communities [87]. Urban resilience requires co-production between citizens and policymakers. Forward-looking resilience narratives align spatial planning with shared community visions [101], reinforcing local identity and civic responsibility [102]. Effective strategies must be context-sensitive, reflecting the nature of specific threats and supported by adaptive, multi-stakeholder governance frameworks [103]. A multi-level participatory resilience framework [104] draws upon collective intelligence, accessible information, and social innovation. Inclusive knowledge-sharing empowers grassroots resilience efforts, while robust technology transfer mechanisms ensure research contributes meaningfully to practice [105].

3.2. Citizen-Centred Bottom-Up-Approach: Policies for Co-Creative Knowledge Creation for Climate Adaptation and Urban Resilience Through NBS

This section examines citizen involvement and the role of NBS in promoting urban resilience. It highlights the importance of community-oriented planning in fostering social cohesion (8 studies) and identifies the positive effects of green spaces and NBS on well-being (5 studies). Furthermore, it underscores the value of increased citizen engagement through integrated bottom-up approaches that strengthen local ownership and participation in urban initiatives (4 studies) (

Table 3. Key elements of citizen involvement and the impact of green spaces and NBS, as presented in the selected publications.

Citizen-Centred Bottom-Up-Approach (n = 15)	Authors
community-centred urban planning (n = 8)	Fraser and Naquin, 2022 [106], Larimian et al., 2020 [107], Ricart et al., 2022 [84], Slemp et al., 2020 [108], Robazza et al., 2024 [109], Gatti and Procentese, 2024 [110], Pellitero and Belil, 2023 [111], Ziehl, 2021 [112]
impact of green spaces and NBS (n = 5)	Lehmann, 2021 [65], Snep et al., 2023 [88], Battisti et al., 2024 [113], Tozer et al., 2023 [102], Konijnendijk, 2023 [114]
increased citizen participation (n = 4)	Larimian et al., 2020 [107], Ricart et al., 2022 [84], Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2019 [97], Visconti, 2023 [115]

).

Wealthier cities often have an increased social vulnerability, which can be mitigated by strengthening social capital [106]. Urban planning should centre on citizens, fostering community interactions to build resilience [107]. Accessible, high-quality public spaces support both social cohesion and well-being [84]. Addressing health equitably [108] requires an integration of natural and technical systems that also nurture individual self-worth and place–people relationships [109]. Strong social networks contribute to a sense of belonging [107], perception, and a sense of community [110], while participatory art promotes environmental empathy and community solidarity, enhancing quality of life and mental well-being [111,112].

Green infrastructure and NBS play a vital role in building urban resilience, delivering ecosystem services, such as heat mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and health benefits [65]. These nature-inspired yet human-designed solutions strengthen ecosystems [113] while providing social benefits [102]. Their success depends on inclusive design processes: engaging local communities in planning can enhance both ecological effectiveness and community impact [88]. Strategies like the “3-30-300 rule” [114] offer guidance for equitable green space distribution. Combining environmental and social data allows green infrastructure to be deployed where it is most needed—benefitting both people and ecosystems [113].

Maximising NBS benefits requires merging community engagement with strategic planning by combining bottom-up and top-down approaches [107]. Decentralised, cooperative planning improves stakeholder inclusion [97], especially when initiated early in the process [84]. Local knowledge and lived experience are critical for recognising community-specific potential—particularly those related to climate impacts and socio-spatial inequalities [115].

3.3. Hybrid Participation: Sustainable Management and Participatory Innovation to Promote Social Resilience and Adaptability in Risk Systems

This section explores how participation can be conceptualised to enhance social resilience and adaptability in urban environments. It focuses on collaborative strategies for sustainable urban transformation, identifying adaptive co-management as a critical element for building resilience (7 studies). Emphasis is placed on empowering communities through the integration of local knowledge, co-design, and citizen science to develop context-specific solutions (7 studies). Co-creation is highlighted as a form of engagement that strengthens a city’s adaptive capacity (4 studies), while digital participation formats offer innovative channels for broad-based community involvement (5 studies) (

Table 4. Factors for conceptualising participation with hybrid participation, as presented in the selected publications.

Hybrid Participation (n = 22)	Authors
collaborative approaches (n = 7)	Boyd and Juhola, 2015 [91], Bhatta et al., 2024 [116], Popescul et al., 2024 [117], van der Jagt et al., 2019 [118], Crowe et al., 2016 [119], Salizzoni et al., 2020 [120], Pfefferbaum et al., 2015 [121]
local knowledge, co-design, and citizen science (n = 7)	Lv and Sarker, 2024 [103], Belfield and Petrescu, 2024 [122], Neset et al., 2021 [123], Sitas et al., 2022 [90], Visconti, 2023 [115], Daniel and Fernandes, 2024 [124], Ungar et al., 2020 [125]
co-creation (n = 4)	DeLosRíos-White et al., 2020 [126], Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2020 [127], Robazza et al., 2024 [109], Scheiber and Mifsud, 2024 [128]
digital participation (n = 5)	Popescul et al., 2024 [117], Rehm et al., 2021 [129], Maurer et al., 2023 [130], Olivares-Rodríguez et al., 2022 [131], Petrescu et al., 2022 [44]

).

Top-down solutions alone are insufficient to drive effective urban climate action. Instead, decentralised, collaborative strategies that include participatory and locally informed approaches are essential [91]. Early involvement of citizens, particularly underrepresented groups, strengthens the adaptive capacity of socio-ecological systems [116,117,118]. Flat hierarchies and collaborative methods optimise resources, support local awareness, and promote shared learning through experimentation [119]. Drawing on diversity, networks, multifunctionality, and flexible planning [120], these approaches are better equipped to tackle place-specific challenges and build local resilience [121]. Initiatives like learning alliances and living labs further institutionalise co-creation processes [118].

By incorporating lived experiences [103], co-creation supports long-term partnerships between science and society [122]. These processes blend interactive learning [123] and hands-on activities [90] to support informed and locally rooted decision-making. Tools like participatory mapping enable communities to identify vulnerabilities and take ownership of transformational change [115]. Citizen science promotes risk-sensitive urban design and strengthens social capital by producing local knowledge [124], enhancing environmental awareness [125].

Co-creation typically follows five key phases: co-explore, co-design, co-experiment, co-implement, and co-manage [126]. Effective implementation depends on involving relevant stakeholders from the outset [127] and fostering programmes that strengthen community ties [109] and a sense of pride in local environments [128].

Digitalisation plays a growing role in urban experimentation, qualifying local innovations [129] and leveraging citizens’ digital connectivity [117]. Tools such as Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) facilitate knowledge exchange, highlight valued spaces, and include disadvantaged groups in planning [130]. Game-based learning—particularly through serious games—can encourage resilience thinking and collaborative problem-solving, especially among children [131]. However, digital platforms can exclude individuals with limited digital access, particularly older adults and those in low-income communities. For this reason, analogue methods remain essential. They are accessible, adaptable, and intuitive, and can be implemented with fewer resources across a wide range of contexts [44].

3.4. Temporary Small-Scale Interventions: Living Labs as a Test Bed for Climate Change Adaptation and Equitable Governance for Urban Resilience

This section examines practical strategies for advancing climate adaptation and promoting inclusive urban governance. It highlights innovative, community-centred approaches that support sustainable urban development. Specifically, it discusses how temporary urban projects (4 studies), small-scale interventions (4 studies), and real-world experiments (4 studies) contribute to climate-responsive neighbourhood design. Additionally, it explores how urban living labs act as drivers of transformation by testing new solutions in real-world settings and involving citizens in meaningful ways (12 studies) (

Table 5. Practical measures for accelerating climate adaptation and promoting equitable governance, as identified in the selected publications.

Temporary Small-Scale Interventions (n = 18)		Authors
temporary urban projects (n = 4)		Robazza et al., 2024 [109], Jarman and Straford, 2023 [132], Petrescu et al., 2022 [44], Belfield and Petrescu, 2024 [122]
small-scale interventions (n = 4)		Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2022 [83], O’Sullivan et al., 2020 [133], Lehmann, 2021 [65], Ryan, 2013 [134]
real-world experiments (n = 4)		Ziehl, 2021 [112], Sieber et al., 2022 [135], Van Neste et al., 2024 [22], Kochskämper, 2024 [136]
living labs (n = 12)	purpose of urban living labs (n = 4)	Ziehl, 2021 [112], Mulder, 2012 [137], von Wirth et al., 2019 [138], Afacan, 2023 [80]
	contribution to climate adaptation and social justice (n = 2)	Greiving and Fleischhauer, 2022 [83], van Neste et al., 2024 [22]
	local resource activation and learning process (n = 6)	Robazza et al., 2024 [109], Petrescu et al., 2022 [44], Sieber et al., 2022 [135], Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2019 [97], Frantzeskaki et al., 2018 [74], Hölsgens et al., 2023 [139]

).

Temporary urbanism employs small-scale, experimental interventions to revitalise underused spaces, encouraging innovation, public engagement, and adaptability. Unlike conventional planning, it relies on co-creative and iterative approaches that foster shared community ownership [44,132]. Such interventions re-activate public spaces [109] and often evolve from short-term installations into enduring platforms that address long-term needs, promoting adaptability, scalability, and transformation [122].

As a climate adaptation strategy, temporary urbanism focuses on localised small-scale and community-driven solutions [83]. Although the ecological benefits of small-scale projects may be modest, they contribute to urban development [133] by improving well-being and urban quality of life [65]. The concept of “eco-acupuncture” promotes targeted ecological interventions that respond to local needs and initiate broader change, while eco-innovation labs help raise awareness and shift behaviours [134].

Real-world experiments provide a framework for testing new solutions in authentic environments, offering room for learning through trial and error. Their open-ended nature allows unexpected insights to emerge [112]. When embedded in local contexts, they accelerate decision-making and foster stronger community involvement [135]. Citizen participation in monitoring and reflection enhances the effectiveness of these initiatives and supports knowledge transfer [22,136].

Urban living labs structure experimental processes to align with social and environmental goals [112]. They serve as platforms for user-led innovation [137] and socio-technical development [138], enabling locally tailored adaptation strategies [83] and social justice dialogues [22]. Early community involvement builds trust, capacity, and social cohesion [109]. These neighbourhood-based living labs activate local resources for resilient urban development [44] and enable citizens to actively participate in experiments and innovations, thereby promoting community engagement [74,97]. Ultimately, they act as catalysts for responsive, forward-looking urban transformation [80]. Challenges facing urban living labs include scaling up outcomes and bridging gaps between scientists and practitioners [135]. These can be addressed through structured processes, inclusive partnerships, and cross-sector collaboration. An enabling environment—built on trust, openness, and a willingness to embrace failure as part of learning—is essential for sustained impact [139].

Creating resilient urban spaces requires integrating socio-ecological strategies. Strengthening community ties improves both cohesion and well-being. At the same time, green infrastructure and NBS support climate resilience by delivering vital ecosystem services—such as cooling during heatwaves, enhancing biodiversity, and promoting health.

4. Results

4.1. Lessons from the Literature Review: Integrating Citizen Knowledge and Hybrid Participation for Urban Resilience

The growing complexity of urban climate challenges, especially heat-related stress, demands more inclusive and adaptive responses. The literature increasingly highlights hybrid participation as a key strategy to integrate technical innovations, such as Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC), into socially legitimate urban transformation processes. By connecting expert knowledge with citizen insight, this approach fosters broader public acceptance, co-ownership, and long-term sustainability.

Urban resilience depends on engaging communities early and consistently throughout transformation processes. Evidence shows that bottom-up, citizen-centred approaches promote inclusive co-creation [97], behavioural change [134], and context-specific solutions [135]. Adaptive governance that integrates social, institutional, and environmental dimensions strengthens planning responsiveness [80] and enhances social capital [124].

Local actors bring valuable knowledge shaped by their experiences and challenges. Bottom-up strategies support place-making [109], reinforce community identity [102], and foster environmental awareness [125] and climate literacy [90]. Blending these initiatives with institutional frameworks enhances the effectiveness and legitimacy of adaptation. Integrated approaches—combining NBS [114], decentralised planning [84], and participatory governance [103]—are essential for urban transformation [91].

Hybrid participation combines digital tools with analogue methods, enabling inclusive and accessible engagement. While digitalisation enhances inclusion and interaction [130], analogue approaches remain crucial to reach underrepresented or digitally excluded groups [44]. Together, they foster co-creation, transparency, and shared decision-making [135] and translate complex, technical innovations, such as ABSC, into tangible, context-sensitive solutions [105,138].

Living labs, as spaces for transdisciplinary collaboration and user-driven experimentation, enable real-world testing and iterative adaptation [74,97]. Though initially limited in scope [133], they build trust [139], awareness [134], and local innovation capacity [137], paving the way for transformation. Temporary urban interventions, often deployed within living labs, serve as practical, low-risk testing grounds. Embedded in local contexts, these small-scale projects respond to environmental and social pressures while promoting co-ownership [44,109] and place-based resilience [74]. Their primary value lies not in immediate effects, but in nurturing engagement, reflection, and adaptive capacity [116,117,118] for urban development [133] by enhancing well-being and urban quality of life [65].

Human-centred participation is essential for effective cooling solutions, increasing both awareness and acceptance. Inclusive approaches create accessible public spaces, promote social cohesion, and enhance well-being [84,88], while addressing climate-related health issues [87]. Early involvement of experts and citizens in a participatory bottom-up process is crucial [84,115]. Living labs facilitate collaboration across sectors, supporting urban transformation and cross-sector innovation [97]. Co-design in living labs builds relationships between science and the community, leading to tailored local solutions for participatory resilience [104,127]. To ensure inclusivity, flexible analogue tools are essential alongside digital methods [122]. Temporary small-scale interventions boost community engagement, activate public spaces [44,109], and may evolve into lasting initiatives [122]. Real-world experiments in living labs test new solutions, identify necessary adjustments, and strengthen citizen participation [74,112]. Urban living labs enhance social interaction and promote innovation through practice-based knowledge [80,109].

4.2. Active Bottom Surface Cooling as Surface Tempering and Heat Mitigation

Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC) is a concept to directly alter surface temperatures in urban environments. The concept is based on the previously tested technology of piped pavements. While previously used primarily for ice melting or geothermal heating [140,141], this method offers potential for urban heat mitigation and improvement of outdoor thermal comfort (OTC). The following chain of evidence demonstrates this potential.

(1) Impact of Surface Properties on Outdoor Thermal Comfort (OTC) via UTCI: The Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI) is a scientifically established indicator that integrates air temperature, wind speed, humidity, and radiation to assess human thermal comfort in outdoor settings [78,142]. Radiative exchange plays a particularly critical role and includes all surrounding surfaces through their contribution to mean radiant temperature T_mrt, which is calculated based on surface temperatures and view factors [143,144]. Bröde et al. found that a 10 K decrease in T_mrt corresponds to a 3 K reduction in UTCI, which significantly reduces heat stress [62]. Urban surface properties, such as albedo, influence radiation absorption and thus T_mrt and UTCI [132]. ABSC aims to technically reduce the temperature of the bottom surface and thereby to decrease T_mrt. Other than the passive method of changing albedo, it influences the surface temperature actively [145].

(2) Technical Feasibility of Heat Transport through Pavement-Embedded Piping: The thermal transport systems required for ABSC have already been tested in ice-melting infrastructure, which uses piping embedded into the pavement surface layer to transmit thermal energy effectively [146]. Originally developed for ensuring road safety during winter, the system of embedded pipes in pavements enables the bidirectional transfer of thermal energy. This allows its reversal application for cooling surfaces, analogous to hydronic cooling systems used in buildings [147]. By absorbing heat from the pavement, the system lowers surface temperatures and thereby reduces the radiant heat flux to humans, improving OTC [147]. This active approach enables direct control over thermal surface conditions, outperforming passive strategies in areas with limited space or high solar radiation [78].

(3) Functional Benefits and Urban Impacts of ABSC: There are three main benefits that can be expected by the application of ABSC in urban environments. The main target of ABSC is heat mitigation in urban areas, to elevate high-rise temperatures and to reduce the heat island effect. ABSC helps to mitigate urban overheating by reducing thermal emissions from bottom surfaces, which are major contributors to UHIs [139]. This leads to lower ambient and radiant temperatures, significantly improving outdoor thermal comfort (OTC), especially during heatwaves [74]. Furthermore, ABSC can be used dual-functionally by simultaneously harvesting thermal energy. The recovered heat can be used for building heating or integrated into district energy systems [148]. This approach not only supports climate adaptation but also contributes to climate change mitigation by reducing cooling demand and enabling thermal energy recovery [148,149]. The third benefit is infrastructure protection. Increased surface temperatures lead to accelerated infrastructure degradation, including asphalt softening, cracking, and blow-ups. ABSC mitigates these effects by maintaining lower surface temperatures, which extends the lifespan of materials and reduces maintenance costs [80].

(4) Spatial Efficiency and Urban Integration: Greening and water-based cooling strategies are often constrained by a lack of space in dense urban areas [47]. Contrarily, ABSC can be implemented beneath existing pavements without competing for rare urban space [140]. It can complement existing heat mitigation and climate adaptation measures like vegetation and water bodies, forming a comprehensive urban climate adaptation strategy [79]. ABSC is especially suitable for densely built cities, enabling surface cooling where land availability is limited.

(5) Influence of Surface Temperature on Urban Airflow and Ventilation: It needs to be pointed out that ABSC is not a universal remedy and that several factors need to be considered when planning and integrating this new technology. Surface cooling not only influences thermal comfort through radiation, but also alters airflow dynamics [58,150,151]. At the baseline, warmer surfaces induce upward convection, enhancing air circulation and pollutant dispersion [152,153]. Conversely, cooler surfaces can stabilize the air, leading to the negative effect of reducing natural ventilation. However, research shows that managing surface temperatures, also through passive measures like increasing albedo, can improve microclimatic conditions [154]. This consideration shows that ABSC needs to be integrated into a comprehensive heat mitigation and climate adaptation strategy, not serving as a standalone measure.

(6) Overall Feasibility and Adaptability: The technical feasibility of ABSC has been validated through its application in systems for de-icing and infrastructure protection [140]. Its scalability and modularity make it adaptable for the surface cooling in high-temperature periods [78]. While upfront investments may be higher than traditional measures like humidification, long-term savings through reduced infrastructure damage and energy harvesting may outweigh the costs. ABSC is flexible across different climate zones, which are increasingly affected by extreme heat due to climate change [139]. With integration into renewable energy networks, ABSC can evolve into a sustainable and resilient urban cooling solution [73,81]. However, this needs to be quantified in further studies.

4.3. Synergies of Socio-Ecological Systems to Improve Human Well-Being and Health

Improving human well-being in urban environments increasingly depends on the ability to integrate technological innovation with participatory, socio-ecological approaches. A promising example is the synergy between ABSC and hybrid participation models, where citizens, experts, and public authorities co-develop strategies that address urban heat, land scarcity, and climate resilience.

One of the central challenges in rapidly urbanising areas is land use competition. The pressure on limited urban space often limits the feasibility of traditional cooling interventions, such as tree planting or open water surfaces [61]. ABSC offers a space-efficient alternative, integrating directly into existing hardscapes without requiring additional land. By embedding cooling infrastructure beneath pedestrian surfaces, this technology effectively reduces surface temperatures and mitigates the urban heat island effect, thereby enhancing OTC and promoting health and well-being [155]. ABSC can be combined with other heat mitigation strategies, creating a multi-layered approach to climate adaptation. While urban green and water bodies enhance OTC through natural cooling effects [65,86], they are sometimes impractical in dense urban settings. Here, ABSC fills a crucial gap, offering targeted relief during peak heat periods without altering land use patterns.

However, technical solutions alone are insufficient. Effective resilience strategies require an integrated socio-ecological approach to reduce disaster risks and manage climate impacts [92]. The feasibility of technical solutions and their long-term impact depend heavily on context-sensitive implementation and community ownership. In this regard, hybrid participation, which blends digital and analogue methods [122], is key. Participatory urban design not only improves the functionality, awareness, and acceptance of interventions but also strengthens social cohesion, well-being, and resilience [88,108]. Citizens, when engaged early in a bottom-up process [84,115], help identify local needs, provide experiential knowledge, and co-develop tailored solutions [83,124,136].

By combining the spatial efficiency of ABSC with inclusive planning processes, cities can implement cooling strategies that are not only effective but also just and sustainable. Hybrid participation enables living labs and real-world experiments [74,112] that test and refine technological innovations on-site. These labs support collaboration across disciplines and sectors [104,127], helping cities navigate complex transitions and integrate both human actions and environmental considerations [96,97]. Temporary small-scale interventions often serve as catalysts, activating underused public spaces [44,109] and evolving into lasting initiatives [122].

The integrated deployment of ABSC through hybrid participation also supports broader goals of urban transformation. It encourages a shift towards a new planning culture [36] that values experimentation [112], shared learning, and responsiveness to both ecological feedback and community priorities [126,135]. Embedding these approaches in urban governance not only addresses immediate thermal stress but also builds long-term capacity for coping with climate impacts, thus advancing health, equity, and well-being [87,109].

In summary, the success of urban heat mitigation depends not solely on the performance of (innovative) technical systems but on their integration into socio-ecological frameworks. By aligning the spatial advantages of ABSC with the adaptive strength of hybrid participation, cities can effectively reconcile land use constraints, enhance OTC, and ensure the feasibility of sustainable, community-driven interventions. This convergence creates a robust, inclusive foundation for climate resilience and human well-being.

5. Discussion

This study addressed the research question “What novel approaches foster the implementation of innovative urban climate adaptation measures to improve well-being, on the premise of community engagement?” It showed evidence that the integrated concept of hybrid participation, acting as a translator for technical innovations (e.g., ABSC) in climate change adaptation and heat mitigation, has the potential to significantly enhance subjective well-being in cities.

5.1. Potential of Integrated Concept to Significantly Enhance Subjective Well-Being in Cities

The pursuit of well-being is essential for creating liveable cities. Urban environments must provide conditions that promote the health and well-being of their citizens. Natural systems play a vital role in delivering ecosystem services. However, land use competition and dense urban areas often restrict the implementation of NBS. To address these challenges, technical innovations are necessary, which can effectively utilise available space, such as sealed surfaces, to provide crucial ecosystem services, particularly in terms of heat mitigation. For a sustainable urban development with resilient socio-ecological systems, it is necessary to engage communities and to implement new technologies for heat reduction. By educating citizens about these innovations and their benefits, cities can raise awareness and acceptance for urban planning processes through participation to enhance well-being and urban resilience.

(1) City as Urban Ecosystem for Socio-Ecological Resilience: Cities function as interconnected urban ecosystems, where people and their environment interact closely. This indicates to focus on socio-ecological resilience, which emphasises adaptability to climate challenges through community engagement, local solutions integrating human and environmental elements [92,96,97], and knowledge exchange across science, policy, and practice.

(2) Hybrid Participation for Better Community Engagement and Urban Resilience: The study of [104] demonstrates that urban resilience relies on participatory, citizen-centred approaches. Hybrid participation formats and temporary small-scale interventions are shown to enhance community engagement [44,83,156]. The hypothesis that urban resilience can be strengthened through a targeted, bottom-up approach involving these methods is theoretically confirmed. It has been shown that hybrid formats can offer an effective way to engage communities in socio-ecological planning processes.

(3) Active Bottom Surface Cooling: Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC) is an innovative technology for mitigating urban heat and enhancing outdoor thermal comfort (OTC) in urban spaces. This study provided proof of concept for ABSC on a concept study level and its effects on reducing surface temperatures, addressing heat-related challenges and complementing other heat mitigation measures, such as greening, humidification, and shading [155]. ABSC offers several advantages beyond heat mitigation, as it enables harvesting thermal energy. Also, it supports the persistence of surfaces like pavements by reducing heat stress on materials, and thereby saves cities repair costs by extending the lifespan of built environments [95]. ABSC can be particularly effective in reducing radiant heat emitted from hot surfaces like asphalt, improving OTC, and making outdoor environments more pleasant during heatwaves [87]. ABSC can work alongside other heat mitigation methods, such as greening initiatives and water bodies, to provide a more comprehensive cooling solution. It is particularly useful in densely built environments where space for large-scale green interventions is limited [61]. ABSC can be implemented beneath existing pavements, roads, and other built-up surfaces without requiring additional land, making it ideal for densely populated cities [94].

The technical feasibility of ABSC has been demonstrated in applications such as geothermal systems for preventing road icing. These systems are adaptable for urban cooling and can be used to maintain lower surface temperatures in summer months [144]. ABSC is versatile enough to be implemented in various climate zones and can be adapted to temperate climates where heatwaves are becoming more frequent due to climate change [155]. While initial investments in ABSC may be higher than traditional methods, the long-term benefits, such as savings on maintenance and repair costs, can potentially outweigh these expenses [83]. Additionally, ABSC systems can incorporate energy recovery technologies, utilizing extracted thermal energy for heating applications [96]. Ultimately, investing in ABSC helps to mitigate urban heat, enhance public health, and improve urban liveability [86]. In summary, ABSC offers a direct and adaptable cooling effect that becomes a sustainable solution when combined with renewable energy sources.

(4) Urban Resilience Through Participation and Technical Innovation: The combination of hybrid participatory processes with ABSC is perceived to show potential to significantly enhance objective and subjective well-being in cities by increasing OTC. It was shown that participatory methods (e.g., hybrid small-scale interventions) are necessary to increase the acceptance of technological innovations (e.g., ABSC).

The concept of an integrated framework that links social and technological components is supportive for heat mitigation. Social and technical aspects must be considered together to develop effective strategies for resilient socio-ecological systems. This approach can be applied to different areas of urban planning (e.g., traffic structuring), where interactions between people and their environment are important. By integrating community input and technological solutions, planners can achieve ecological and climatic improvements that enhance citizens’ well-being and health. This study demonstrated the need for an integrated socio-ecological framework and its potential to address various urban challenges and support sustainable development in cities.

5.2. Limitations and Future Studies

The literature review aimed to capture recent developments in research on participation and living labs from the past decade. Given the large number of sources, the review was limited to key publications from 2020 to 2024, along with selected significant studies from earlier years. As numerous terms exist for digital, analogue, and hybrid formats, this review may not encompass all relevant works. Instead, it provided a structured overview of key topics and highlighted the complex connections between urban resilience, socio-ecological systems, and participatory approaches. Despite the growing potential of hybrid participation—combining analogue on-site and digital off-site engagement—several challenges remain. Digital exclusion, often linked to socioeconomic disparities, limited access to technology, or low digital literacy, can marginalise vulnerable populations and reduce the inclusivity of participatory processes. Additionally, participation fatigue, resulting from repeated or poorly coordinated engagement efforts, may lead to declining interest and trust, particularly in digital formats that lack personal interaction. These issues can undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of hybrid approaches, highlighting the need for inclusive design, flexible tools, and balanced engagement strategies that accommodate diverse user needs and capacities.

Future studies should test this integrated socio-ecological framework in real-world case studies to further validate the effectiveness of integrated socio-ecological approaches and make specific adjustments for different urban environments. The impact of ABSC on OTC, as shown in this study, requires further exploration in future research. To achieve this heat mitigation strategy, simulations incorporating the UTCI should be carried out. These simulations will help to identify the threshold at which ABSC continues to mitigate heat effectively, providing valuable insights to support decision-making regarding its application. Also, the technical application of energy harvesting requires several specific conditions, like the integration in low-temperature systems or the implementation of a seasonal storage. Furthermore, the financing of ABSC can be a barrier, as it necessitates high efforts to implement piping systems in the bottom surface. Future studies shall estimate financing options and business models for this technology and application.

6. Conclusions

Climate change and dense urban development are contributing to rising temperatures in cities, with adverse effects on health and well-being. Outdoor thermal comfort (OTC) is typically measured using indices such as the Universal Thermal Climate Index (UTCI), while subjective well-being can be assessed through preference studies that increase awareness and acceptance. Nature-based solutions (NBSs) play a key role in enhancing urban resilience; however, limited space and competing land uses often constrain their implementation. As such, integrating grey infrastructure is essential for supporting climate adaptation efforts.

This study adopted an integrated socio-ecological approach that considered both environmental and social dynamics. It assumed that technological innovation can partially replicate ecosystem services, such as heat mitigation, and should be embedded within participatory frameworks to foster collective engagement. Combining participatory methods with technical solutions offers a novel strategy to enhance community involvement while addressing the challenges of urban heat. Current adaptation practices—including greening, humidification, reflective surfaces, and shading—improve OTC, but their effectiveness is limited by spatial constraints. Participation in these processes remains superficial in many cases, with top-down planning dominating over co-creation. This research highlighted the importance of more comprehensive approaches. A literature review identified key studies on participatory planning and living labs, with a focus on hybrid participation that merges digital and analogue in-person engagement. Temporary, small-scale interventions emerged as vital tools for raising awareness and acceptance of climate adaptation, building social capital, and fostering community resilience.

In terms of technical adaptation, this study examined the concept of Active Bottom Surface Cooling (ABSC) as a means to improve OTC. The UTCI included radiation as a major factor, and reducing radiant heat exposure can significantly lower perceived temperatures. Adapted from systems originally designed for ice melting, subsurface pipe loops were used here for ABSC. This reduced radiant heat, limited material degradation, and enabled thermal energy recovery—contributing to urban energy efficiency and climate responsiveness.

The findings highlighted the need for an integrated framework that links socio-ecological systems with hybrid participatory methods in the context of heat mitigation. Educating the public within this integrated structure increases awareness and acceptance and supports more participatory urban planning. A bibliometric analysis reinforced the connection between participation and resilience, identifying four key topics: (1) socio-ecological systems, (2) co-creative knowledge generation, (3) participatory innovation and governance, and (4) living labs as platforms for experimentation.

Based on these insights, this study proposed that urban resilience can be strengthened through a target group-oriented, bottom-up approach using hybrid participation formats and temporary small-scale interventions. Such methods allow for co-development and testing of technologies with the public, providing a strong foundation for an integrated framework. In addition to the bibliometric analysis, the concept study of ABSC was structured around three dimensions: (1) heat mitigation, (2) energy harvesting, and (3) infrastructure protection. Overall, the results showed that this cooling approach effectively reduced urban temperatures and complemented space-efficient design. The observed link between citizen engagement and technological implementation underlines the value of a holistic socio-ecological approach, leveraging synergies for (a) efficient land use due to land use competition, (b) improved OTC for heat mitigation, and (c) feasibility through technology and human-centred participation.

In conclusion, the proposed framework views the city as an urban ecosystem for fostering socio-ecological resilience, promoting integrated solutions for climate adaptation. Hybrid participation fosters public ownership, while ABSC offers a scalable technical measure for improving OTC, reducing surface degradation, and recovering energy. Together, these approaches enhance urban liveability and resilience. The framework provides a strategic pathway for sustainable urban development that combines community engagement with innovative climate responses.