Lean Urban Regeneration Through Inclusion, Sharing, and Co-Creation

Abstract

Urban regeneration has traditionally focused on large-scale developments that aim at increasing the livability and vitality of disadvantaged areas. Alternative views of urban regeneration have emerged to challenge such a structural approach. These novel ideas reflect contextual changes in progressive and innovative Western countries that embrace the culture of experimentation, prefer sharing to ownership, and emphasize participation and inclusion as fundamental aspects of public governance. This article elaborates the idea of lean urban regeneration in the progressive welfare society context, with a special view of citizen and stakeholder involvement through inclusion, sharing, and co-creation. Empirical research utilizes mini cases of the largest cities in the growth triangle of Finland. This article identifies the manifestations of lean urban regeneration and discusses its preconditions and ability to tackle urban development challenges. The results emphasize the framing nature of inclusion, the underutilization of sharing, and the key role of co-creation in lean urban regeneration. A particular potential of lean interventions is based on co-creation as the core of multimodal or hybrid regenerative projects that are firmly anchored on economic inclusion. By utilizing the input of residents, entrepreneurs, and other local stakeholders, it is possible to open up a path to integrated high-leverage activities with a potential to alleviate structural urban problems.

1. Introduction

Urban regeneration refers to large-scale social programs or infrastructure projects that aim to promote urban development and, in particular, to solve or at least mitigate major urban problems, such as poverty, exclusion, segregation, educational deficiency, disintegration, and criminality. While such policies are seen as worthy in urbanized societies, there are several factors that challenge the premises of the structural approach to urban development. One of them is addressed in the criticism towards large-scale urban development projects [1], and the other one relates to policy ineffectiveness [2]. Large-scale urban development projects tend to become the playground of the political elite, real estate companies, and other private players of the urban growth machine [3]. More philosophically, it has been claimed that structural problems do not necessarily require large-scale solutions, but rather small-scale interventions within a large-scale framework [4]. In the same vein, the emphasis on institutionalized and systemic aspects of urban development typical of established actors could be supplemented by uncovering the potential hidden in urban communities. It has been hypothesized in the current literature that citizen participation, community involvement, and social capital are the key to successful urban regeneration [5,6]. Such observations urge us to ask how to give local potential a proper role in urban development.

Novel approaches to urban development mark a shift from exogenous to endogenous factors, from top-down to bottom-up logic, from ownership to sharing, from financial to social capital, and from physical to social infrastructures (e.g., [5,6,7]). Such solutions are inherently locally adjusted and dynamic in contrast to institutionally embedded large-scale, one-size-fits-all urban regeneration interventions. On the other hand, such small-scale interventions are likely to produce incremental changes, which leaves open the question of the extent to which they may contribute to structural transformation of society.

There is a larger family of alternative urban planning approaches, which are characteristically small-scale, quick, and inclusive, i.e., they favor the involvement of local people and institutions in contributing to immediate or short-term changes in neighborhoods. From an instrumental point of view, such an approach is based on Lean thinking, which can be applied to urban regeneration. In this article, focus is on institutionally oriented lean urban regeneration, which emphasizes rule-based actions, inter-sectoral alignment, and the coordinating role of local government.

The research question that guides this article is the following: what are the emerging forms of lean urban regeneration in the progressive welfare society, and to what extent do related interventions show potential to tackle structural challenges faced by cities? The focus is on citizen and stakeholder involvement in urban regeneration through three different modus of involvement, those of inclusion, sharing, and co-creation.

The discussion of the theoretically grounded views of lean urban regeneration is instantiated by the initiatives, projects, and experiments in an institutionally mature societal context with functioning participatory local democracy and a “thick” institutional environment. Empirical analysis is based on mini cases drawn from Helsinki and other large Finnish cities. There is no prior research on this particular topic, especially from the point of view of local stakeholder involvement, which highlights the novelty and exploratory nature of this research. This article provides conceptual clarity of the multi-dimensional lean urban regeneration regarding the applicability and significance of different modes of stakeholder involvement in such urban development processes. Another contribution of this article is to shed light on various dimensions of Lean and highlight perspectives that are essential for assessing their relevance. Finally, this article presents concrete examples of lean urban development through multiple mini cases, compiled into policy-relevant views that can be utilized in determining urban development policies and promoting effective resource allocation and utilization. Such contributions can be utilized by urban researchers in interpreting and exploring novel elements and critical nuances of lean urban development, and also by urban leaders, managers, designers, and developers in designing urban policies and finetuning resource-efficient policy interventions.

Next, this article outlines theoretical framework, followed by a section that clarifies multiple mini case studies as research methodology and discusses the premises of using mini cases as exemplifications of lean urban regeneration. The following section presents results structured around three core themes. After this, results are elaborated in the Discussion section, to be followed by concise concluding remarks.

2. Theoretical Insights into Lean Urban Regeneration

Urban regeneration belongs to the family of multi-dimensional concepts, within which the idea of regeneration highlights the symbiotic relationship between the city as a collection of people living in a densely populated area and its built and natural environments [8]. It refers to a planning strategy that focusses on large-scale investments in improving urban areas in the pursuit of economic revitalization, social renewal, and sustainable development (see [9,10,11]). Following Roberts’ ([9], p. 18) account, we may define urban regeneration as “comprehensive and integrated vision and action which seeks to resolve urban problems and bring about a lasting improvement in the economic, physical, social and environmental condition of an area that has been subject to change or offers opportunities for improvement.” Historically, such policy interventions saw the light of day in the 1970s in the UK and other urbanized Western countries as a response to deprivation of inner-city areas caused by economic restructuring [12]. Since the 2010s, alternative approaches to urban development started to emerge relying on smaller scale, fewer resources, and a shorter time frame. An institutionally oriented form of such an alternative approach is called lean urban regeneration, which will be discussed next.

2.1. Alternative Approaches to Urban Regeneration

Lean urban regeneration is a small-scale and agile version of traditional urban regeneration. It enhances the will, resources, and capabilities of an urban community, while taking into account the institutional framework of urban planning. This emphasizes the role of local government as the key player in democratic local governance, while at the same time, highlighting the importance of inclusive urban planning practices, citizen empowerment, and civic governance (cf. [13,14,15]).

The main inspiration behind the idea of lean urban regeneration is the wave of alternative approaches to urban planning and development that emerged around the 2010s. It has a connection with a broader concept of lean urbanism [16], which emerged in the field of urban architecture and design. It developed around the same time as many other alternative approaches to conventional urban planning, the most well-known of them being new urbanism [17], self-organization in urban planning [18,19], do-it-yourself (DIY) urbanism [20], pop-up urbanism [21], tactical urbanism [7], urban hacktivism [22], urban acupuncture [23,24], and new municipalism [25,26]. Lean urbanism emerged as a seam between new urbanism and tactical urbanism. New urbanism is the oldest of these approaches, having its roots in the 1980s. It is a sustainability-oriented urban design movement that aimed at mitigating suburban sprawl by promoting walkable, human-scaled, and mixed-use neighborhoods. This approach was still rather tightly connected with the conventions of urban planning. A younger generation of urbanists tended to be more “rebellious,” which brought about novel aspirations to urban planning discourse. An outcome of such a development was the emergence of tactical urbanism and a few similar approaches. Tactical urbanism is a community-oriented approach to neighborhood building and activation using short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions. It is aligned with the solutions of temporary and pop-up urbanism and the self-help actions of citizens and communities associated with DIY urbanism. Only recently it has been applied directly to urban regeneration, thus tightening its connections with the institutional framework of urban planning [27].

Lean urbanism is a step further from new urbanism and tactical urbanism in the sense that it tries to deal with regulatory environment while at the same time supporting local activism and creativity. It aims to “lower the barriers to community-building, to make it easier to start businesses, and to provide more attainable housing and development” [28]. It implies a disengagement from traditional urban planning with regard to its bureaucratic and time-consuming processes and heavy regulatory frameworks. Lean urbanism thus reflects a strong deregulatory sentiment, which is promoted to enhance greater local vitality [29]. Lean urbanism’s interest in small-scale economic development echoes the ideas of E. F. Schumacher, encapsulated in the slogan “small is beautiful” [30]. It focusses on minimizing red tape, which is expected to empower local forces to create “lighter, quicker, and cheaper” solutions that do not require massive investments or even government interventions ([16], cf. [31]).

Even if the need for low-cost, high-impact projects is a common denominator between lean urbanism and lean urban regeneration, the latter is not a straightforward application of the former in urban regeneration. Namely, lean urbanism emphasizes a deregulation perspective and lacks interest in institutional aspects of urban regeneration as well as in the role of local government as a democratic instance of urban planning. The differentia specifica of lean urban regeneration is not what it aims at but rather the approach and means by which it seeks to achieve its goals.

2.2. The Core of Lean Urban Regeneration

The lean approach to urban development borrows from industrial management, usually referred to as lean production or lean manufacturing, or more broadly as lean management, which stands for a process improvement philosophy that aims at creating value through the efficient use of resources and the elimination of waste [32,33,34]. Its distinctive feature is orientation towards the value perceived by the customer, constantly seeking to increase quality, reduce lead times, and decrease costs. In the public policy context, lean thinking translates into the efficient use of local resources, which fits well with the needs of urban regeneration [35,36]. While the lean approach to urban development shares a similar starting point with many other community-oriented approaches to local development, it tends to be more practical, efficiency-oriented, and agile, thus facilitating the involvement of residents, action groups, local businesses, and other local stakeholders irrespective of the amount of resources at their disposal [28]. A simplified picture of the key components of the lean urban regeneration process is presented in Figure 1.

In short, lean urban regeneration is an institutionally oriented, agile, and resource-efficient approach to urban development. Its inclination towards small-scale and short-term solutions deviates from traditional urban regeneration. On the other hand, it is also different from tactical urbanism and other similar alternative urban development schemes due to its tight connection with local government and the institutional framework of urban planning. The differences in these three approaches are summarized in

Table 1. Three concepts of regenerative urban development.

Concept	Traditional Urban Regeneration	Tactical Urbanism	Lean Urban Regeneration
Definition	Urban planning strategy that focusses on large-scale investments in improving urban areas in the pursuit of economic revitalization, social improvement, and sustainability	A community-oriented approach to urban development relying on small-scale, often citizen-funded and temporary interventions	A resource-efficient and stakeholder-oriented approach to revitalizing urban areas by focusing on incremental and flexible solutions
Typical actors	Local governments, urban planners, developers, and construction companies	Citizens, urban activists, civic groups, and grassroots movements	Local governments in collaboration with residents, user groups, and local businesses
The scale of interventions	Large-scale, developer-led, and top-down area-based projects that develop infrastructures, major attractions, or housing	Community-oriented short-term, low-cost, and scalable localized interventions in neighborhood building and activation	Collaborative small-scale actions that aim at catalytic and synergistic impacts on urban development
Resources	Large-scale projects relying on public or private funding or partnerships	Self-funded, crowdsourced, or jointly funded low-cost projects that rely on activism and volunteering	Low-cost collaborative solutions primarily resourced by local governments
Time frame	Long-term; transformative processes	Short-term; temporary solutions	Short-term and medium-term time horizons
Examples	Hafencity in Hamburg; The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London; Clichy-Batignolles Eco-District in Paris; 22@Barcelona innovation district in Barcelona; Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao; Nordhavn city district in Copenhagen	The low-cost conversion of Times Square to a pedestrian plaza; bike lanes and crosswalks on Bellingham Street in Bellingham, WA; adding a “5 North” sign by Richard Ankrom in the traffic sign in downtown LA in 2001 and its aftermath	Detroit’s revitalization efforts (reduced regulatory hurdles); participatory public space revival in Trnava, Slovakia; RAMMAUS Project in the city of Helsinki; WeGenerate Project of the city of Tampere

.

2.3. Dimensions of Lean Urban Regeneration

The social ontological nature of lean urban regeneration can be revealed by examining it from the point of view of such fundamental categories as spatiotemporality, institutionality, and relational agency. In terms of the physical environment, lean urban regeneration focuses on such aspects of physical environment as light structures, urban lighting, urban gardening, and minor decorative changes in the environment, including public art, color schemes, and the like. An illustrative case is temporary architecture, which “can revitalize, regenerate, and produce new meanings for urban spaces, activate people to use public spaces in a new way, increase social interaction in the city, and raise positive public attention.” [37].

The other side of the spatio-temporal reality is referred to as temporary urbanism, which has the potential to be catalytic for urban development. Such a potential, based on temporary/permanent binary-related mechanisms, includes attitudes, expectations, relationality, attention, and tempo that affect the chain of events in development processes [38]. Temporary use of urban pockets, abandoned structures, wastelands, or other areas has become a peculiar aspect of late modern urbanism, which echoes the ‘right to the city’ and ‘urban commons’ approaches to urban development ([39]; cf. [40]).

Lean has institutional, organizational, and managerial dimensions that form a precondition for the successful implementation of urban development projects (on Lean in local government, see [41]). Signs of lean organization of local development efforts can be seen in the use of light institutionalized arrangements, living labs, open civic forums, and various kinds of platforms. A particular trend that facilitates lean organizational solutions is platformization as a part of dynamic platform urbanism [42]. Platforms were developed in the private sector as solutions that minimize fixed assets and enable the reliance on outsourcing, while at the same time, effectively facilitating matchmaking and audience-building and fostering network effects that are critical to income generation within the platform ecosystem [43]. In urban governance, real-life examples include digital participatory platforms that facilitate co-creation [44,45] and accessible and feasible digital crowdsourcing tools [46].

Another Lean dimension emerges from the invigoration of an area through ad hoc events, activities, or places that bring people together, which in usual cases increases the livability and attractiveness of an area. Furthermore, there are various forms of interaction-oriented regeneration through facilitated sharing, exchanges, participation, and inclusive co-creation, which broadens the human resource pool and strengthens relational capital in the development processes. The policy challenge is to guarantee that such light interaction-oriented interventions are resource-efficient and have a positive long-term impact on urban development.

In summary, an ideal type of stakeholder-oriented lean urban regeneration project meets the following four criteria: (i) it is small-scale and resource-efficient; (ii) it takes place within a temporary, short-term, or in some cases, medium-term time frame; (iii) it facilitates the participation of local civic and private actors in value creation; and (iv) it operates within or has a close connection with the local government’s urban development policy framework.

Selected social ontological dimensions of Lean are illustrated in Figure 2. From such a diverse set of features of lean urban regeneration, this article focuses on the ‘people’ dimension, which has a discursive connection with social innovations [47], self-organized actions of local people that aim at reshaping their living environment [7,19,20], participation and civic engagement [48], and actions that facilitate inclusion, sharing, and collaboration [49]. The question is, how can local stakeholder involvement best serve the needs of small-scale urban regeneration?

There are endless ways to involve local residents, associations, and businesses in lean urban regeneration. In order to be able to analytically emphasize relevant aspects of such involvement, discussion in the next chapter focuses on three concepts that reflect different forms and relationalities of stakeholder involvement.

2.4. Stakeholder Involvement in Lean Urban Regeneration

This article addresses the issue of how local stakeholders are involved in lean urban regeneration. In order to highlight different forms and relationalities of such an involvement, we focus on three distinguishable ways stakeholders connect with regeneration projects. The generic view of involvement revolves around access and inclusion issues, which not only serve citizens’ rights but also improve opportunities to utilize diverse community capitals in the local development processes. This theme is crystallized in the concept of inclusion. To take access and involvement further, we may consider the forms of involvement that encourage the use of local resources in the most effective way. This revolves around urban actors’ willingness to share and reuse items and assets that are available in the local community. These kinds of activities are associated with the idea of sharing. Lastly, what matters is not only inclusion and sharing, but also acting and contributing to what needs to be done to promote urban development. This, epitomized in the concept of co-creation, is the third element discussed as a component of lean urban regeneration. These three aspects of stakeholder-oriented regeneration are briefly outlined next.

2.4.1. Inclusion

Inclusion is a challenging term due to its relational nature and vagueness. Such aspects of inclusion as who makes decisions and who is included, what is at stake, what is the context, and how inclusion factually affects social settings beg clarification on every occasion this term is used [50,51]. The social ontology of inclusion is much more complex than what may appear at first sight. Silver ([50], pp. 2–3) sees inclusion as a multi-dimensional and relational concept, which refers to a “process of increasing opportunities for social participation, enhancing capabilities to fulfill normatively prescribed social roles, broadening social ties of respect and recognition, and at the collective level, enhancing social bonds, cohesion, integration, or solidarity.”

Inclusion has become an integral part of inner-city and neighborhood development, as promoted especially by the UN and other international organizations with SDGs and the New Urban Agenda as one of the most relevant policy frameworks. In particular, SDG 11—“Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”—describes the policy framework in which inclusion has a role to play as a progressive principle to guide the governance of urban development [52]. It is notable that rather than as an independent category, inclusion is often discussed in the context of sustainability when associated with urban development. Such an approach promotes citizen-centeredness, inclusive orientation, and participatory practices in urban development with the help of novel institutional arrangements, platforms, and facilitation tools [53].

Regarding lean urban regeneration, inclusion is a precondition for the maximum involvement of citizens and other local stakeholders in the processes of neighborhood or community development. It can be seen “as a systemic approach adopted by public and private organizations to help people recover their capabilities, pursue their most important goals and thus pave the road to realizing this ideal.” [54]. Good examples are user and community involvement in planning public facilities, the usage of public spaces, and stakeholder involvement in placemaking processes [55]. Such an approach sees public space essentially as commons or as a shared resource that belongs jointly to all the residents, or more widely, all the members of society [56]. This particular aspect highlights the accessibility dimension of inclusion, including the role of physical configuration and placemaking in fostering inclusiveness [57].

While inclusion is a normative principle that promotes inclusive public discourse on urban regeneration agenda [58], as well as open access to and broad involvement of disadvantaged groups in urban regeneration, it also emphasizes inclusive governance throughout such local processes [59] and the need to ensure that “the benefits of regeneration are distributed fairly and equitably among all members of the community, including marginalized and vulnerable groups” [60].

2.4.2. Sharing

Sharing as a generic concept refers to a social practice in which some assets or items are put at other people’s disposal. It has been crystallized in the idea of sharing economy, which has its conceptual roots in access economy, platform economy, and community-based economy [61,62,63]. There are surprising variations in the views on the concept of sharing economy due to its multi-dimensional nature in terms of actors, objects, channels, ownership, and business models [61,63,64,65,66,67].

The sharing economy has been growing steadily in recent decades due to a range of global trends and developments [67,68]. The practices of sharing economy are prevalent in accommodation, mobility, food, goods, space, and time sharing [64,66]. While sharing takes place in a field of diverse independent actors, it can also benefit from coordinated collective actions, usually performed by municipalities that promote sharing through several simultaneous roles and a variety of sharing initiatives [67].

On the lean urban regeneration agenda, sharing implies that local governance should be reshaped towards a regenerative community approach, which utilizes local stakeholders’ ability to reuse, exchange, rent, borrow, lease, and donate items in the purpose of reshaping the urban environment, revitalizing the local economy, supporting community development, and contributing to wellbeing and sustainability [69].

2.4.3. Co-Creation

The concept of co-creation has its roots in social and private sector innovation literature, the communicative turn in planning theory, and new trends in governance discourse [70]. It is still an under-researched concept [71]. In practice, various kinds of participatory methods and collaborative frameworks have laid the ground for advancing urban governance towards co-creation. Co-creation is expected to hold the potential to leverage the creativity needed to foster the vitality, viability, and ability of urban communities to participate in urban transitions and the implementation of public policies [71,72].

As crystallized by Frantzeskaki and others, “co-creation is a novel form of governance that supports evidence-based policy making in gearing up innovative pathways for urban transitions.” [71]. It does not happen without careful design; it requires productive collaboration and the utilization of knowledge from several actor groups that represent different interests and domains. This is an important remark, because the core of co-creation in the local public domain is to create or produce something together with citizens or other local stakeholders. In public service management, this is associated with the idea of co-production [73], whereas in urban development, the same discussion revolves around the concept of co-creation.

The concept of co-creation is an outgrowth of the rise in collaborative governance, which in the urban context is associated with place-based urban development processes. [71]. It has been characterized as “a new type of ‘generative governance’ aimed at solving complex problems by constructing platforms enabling the formation of arenas for co-creation that bring together a plethora of public and private actors, including citizens, in creative problem-solving processes.” [74]. Moreover, it has been seen to involve innovative open-ended processes, usually some kinds of lean pilots or experimentations, where diverse urban actors work together to design, experiment with, and implement novel ideas, strategies, or projects [71,75,76]. Such a view of co-creation has an inherent connection with lean urban regeneration.

3. Methodology

As the topic of this article is both novel and complex, it requires an interplay between theoretical and empirical research, the former providing guidance for theoretically grounded thematization and the interpretation of real-life developments, and the latter providing evidence through a set of cases that exemplify various aspects of lean urban regeneration. In order to address these challenging premises, this study relies on the methodology of multiple mini case studies.

3.1. Multiple Mini Case Studies Approach

The multiple mini case studies (MMCS) approach belongs to the family of case study methodologies. Even if its reliance on the utilization of several illustrative examples draws primarily from case study methodology [77,78], it does not aim at providing the kind of contextualized descriptions of real-life phenomena that are typical to in-depth case study analyses. There is a need to address critical questions concerning design requirements, data collection procedures, data analysis, and the validity and reliability associated with the use of multiple mini cases [79]. The MMCS approach with limited sources of case-based evidence emphasizes, as a methodological choice, the instructive or exemplificative nature of its primary data, which is oftentimes fragmentary due to the given research setting, i.e., it does not necessitate reliance on in-depth analysis of a single case nor a conventional across-case approach to data [80]. Such an approach may sometimes fail to establish a connection between theory and empirical evidence and provide only limited context or illustrative aspects of the researched phenomenon [81], which explains why such research endeavors are sometimes grouped as ‘marginal case studies’ [82]. However, Käss and others have developed MMCS as a mindful approach with a potential for rigor, distinguishing them from so-called marginal case studies. It can be particularly useful in time-sensitive research processes, when there are difficulties collecting comprehensive data from multiple sources for each case, or in situations where the research setting is complex [81].

MMCS has a similarity with conventional case study research in that there is a need to report the data collection method transparently so that anyone is able to assess the sufficiency of the data for the research task [83]. However, what is of particular importance with MMCS is the special nature of the data and the way they are used. The answer to both questions is rooted in the need to provide empirical evidence of evolving multi-dimensional phenomenon. For this reason, the key methodological task is to exemplify the phenomenon [84] and, in this case in particular, to provide real-life vignettes [85]. This is a noteworthy point, for vignettes are usually hypothetical or ideal-type mini cases, whereas our mini cases represent empirical reality, collected primarily from externally published documents, websites, and reports, as well as from descriptions documented in prior case studies [83].

While the MMCS approach may not be as nuanced as a conventional case study or related qualitative methodologies, it is expected to help in building an accurate picture of the instances that can be utilized in a theoretically grounded analysis. This implies that even if the place of case descriptions in the hierarchy of scientific evidence is low, it is a promising way of building a sufficiently firm ground to understanding novel and complex phenomena with several loosely connected components embedded in the given institutional or societal settings. Such an approach is particularly well suited to exploratory research. The other justification of this methodological choice in this article is the strong theoretical and constructive nature of the analysis, which aims at generating policy-relevant knowledge that is based on the interplay of theoretical perspectives and empirical data.

3.2. The Selection of Case Cities

Regarding inclusion, sharing, and co-creation in lean urban regeneration, Europe is a promising macroregion due to its progressive urban policies and diverse administrative traditions (e.g., [76]). Progressive policies are exceptionally pronounced in Nordic countries [86,87], of which we focus on Finland. There are comparable cases in Europe, such as the liberal urban renewal framework in the Netherlands [88,89] and the culturally and socially oriented Barcelona model [90]. Among such alternatives, Finland is particularly illustrative due to its decentralized administrative structure and experimentation culture that have created a fruitful soil for local lean regenerative activities.

Urban regeneration in Finland addresses the issues of disadvantaged residential areas (A1–A2) in the context of competitiveness policy and the promotion of economic growth [91]. A good example of a program-based urban policy is a national residential area development program in 2020–2022 coordinated by the Ministry of Environment (A1). However, the other side of the coin is the decentralized and bottom-up aspect of urban development, which reflects the culture of experimentation practiced by self-governing local authorities [92]. Such urban development efforts comprise a lot of small-scale initiatives and projects designed to reinvigorate the local economy and revitalize local communities in different parts of the country (see, e.g., A3).

The mini cases are chosen from the pool of projects within the five largest cities in the so-called growth triangle of Finland, including Helsinki, Espoo and Vantaa from the capital region, supplemented with the cities of Tampere and Turku. This selection is based on the observation that most of the urban regeneration projects can be found from large cities due to their urban challenges as well as their resources and capabilities. The most illustrative case is the city of Helsinki. It has a unique position in Finnish urban development. In the capital region, there are two other large cities, Espoo and Vantaa, which have a fairly high profile in urban regeneration. Vantaa is a multicultural airport city, while Espoo is among the fastest growing cities in the country, known for its high-tech business and higher education institutions. Other middle-sized postindustrial cities included in this study are the inland city of Tampere and the city of Turku in the southwest coast of Finland.

3.3. Mini Case Selection and Data Analysis

The examples of lean urban regeneration are selected among the pool of regenerative projects of the five cities on the basis of their ability to reflect inclusion, sharing, and co-creation as the core aspects of regenerative activities. As lean urban regeneration is an emerging multi-dimensional phenomenon, the formal criteria of case selection were loose, reflecting some dimensions of the lean (Figure 2) and some relevant aspects of inclusion, sharing, or co-creation. The pool of mini cases was collected through prior case studies, direct searches from the websites of case cities, and searches using Google search engine. Regarding the last one, a few terminological issues needed to be addressed before the searches. First, the term ‘lean’ is rarely used in the context of urban development, both in Finland and globally. This implies that the search terms had to be generic, and the source had to be evaluated using the primary dimensions of lean presented in Figure 2 as inclusion criteria, most notably whether the urban regeneration project was short-term and small-scale. Second, there is no established term for ‘urban regeneration’ in Finnish language, which made the search challenging. In the Finnish context, suburban development programs and the development of urban districts were the initial key terms used. Searches were conducted using Google, both in English (“lean urban regeneration” and a few variations) and Finnish (“kaupunginosakehittäminen” and “lähiöuudistus” and a few variations of these), which were combined separately with the names of the five case cities. Search criteria were kept loose, as it improved chances of having organic search results that include interesting and surprising suggestions. In all, about 300 pages were quickly reviewed, applying the previously mentioned inclusion criteria. Some 50 websites appeared to be relevant for this research in terms of including potential mini cases. When the screening of these sites reached saturation point, it appeared that Helsinki and Tampere offered the largest pool of potential mini cases. The second pool of potential mini cases was collected through a systematic review of the websites of case cities (http://www.hel.fi/, http://www.tampere.fi/, etc.) as well as their official policy documents, which partly overlapped with the previously described Google search. As a result, 10 relevant policy documents were selected (see Appendix A—Helsinki: A4–A6; Tampere: A7–A10, A13; Turku: A19; and Espoo: A37). City governments’ websites included also several project documents, of which some are included in Appendix A. Regarding all the documents and websites, English versions were used, whenever available. Lastly, the third pool of mini cases was collected by reviewing prior single and multiple case studies (e.g., [19,38,40,45,47,48,91]). To sum up, the final selection was made among approximately 40 potential mini cases collected from multiple sources based on quick assessment of how illustrative each case is and how it would help to increase internal diversity in three thematic categories. For each category, a maximum of ten mini cases were considered for inclusion in the study in order to keep the number of mini cases reasonable. According to the final decision, inclusion, sharing and co-creation are illustrated with 6 mini cases each. The total number of selected mini cases is thus 18 (selected mini case references are listed in Appendix A).

The public data on current lean urban regenerative projects and experiments is scattered and partly low-quality, which implies that conventional qualitative methods of data analysis are not feasible. This challenge is amplified due to the fact that the phenomenon under investigation is novel and conceptually vague. The latter implies that one and the same lean regenerative project may reflect some aspects of two or even all three modes of stakeholder involvement. For the same reason the criterion of lean is used in a flexible manner, as this concept is multi-dimensional and the criteria for determining its dimensions are far from clear.

After selecting the most illustrative mini cases, they are utilized in an exploratory MMCS analysis. Unstructured and partially incomplete data are described roughly using simple descriptions and classifications, which become the first illustrative research findings (cf. [84]). These are then refined vis-à-vis empirical and theoretical literature about inclusion, sharing, and co-creation and their role in urban regeneration. Exploratory MMCS is suitable for early-stage research into ambiguous realities, focusing on the clarification of the meaning and essential features of the phenomenon under study [81]. With such methodological settings in mind, the most illustrative semantic aspects of mini cases are highlighted in the results section and, finally, integrated into a theoretically informed discussion on stakeholder participation in lean urban regeneration.

4. Results

This section starts by providing a brief overview of the urban regeneration Helsinki and other large cities in Finland. After this, the discussion focuses on emerging forms of lean urban regeneration. Each aspect of stakeholder involvement—inclusion, sharing, and co-creation—is discussed briefly in a separate section.

4.1. Recent Trends in Urban Regeneration in Finland

4.1.1. A Glance at the History of Urban Regeneration in Large Cities

Finland was an agrarian society through the 19th century. Industrialization and urbanization saw the light of day in the early decades of the century, yet industrial capitalism strengthened much later. Workers with their families gathered gradually in the latter half of the century in major industrial towns, which changed the urban landscape of the country. The growth period in the early 20th century was followed by two world wars and the post-war reconstruction decades with rapid industrialization and urbanization. By the mid-1970s, over half of Finns lived in cities. Soon, deindustrialization started to pave the way to postindustrial society, and socioeconomic and ethnic segregation began to increase [93,94,95]. Social aspects of urban development were an integral part of urban renewal programs under the umbrella of institutionally acknowledged yet fragmentary and poorly coordinated urban policy agenda [96,97,98].

A noteworthy traditional strength at local level has been strong institutionalized localism that developed in parallel with the building of the welfare society [99]. Such an integrative national context and institutional isomorphism explain why early suburban renewal interventions were mostly broad and preventive rather than narrow and remedial [100]. However, traditional urban planning paradigm was challenged under various structural pressures in the 1990s (e.g., [94,96,101]). It gradually paved the way for innovative pilots and local experimentations and created a fertile ground for projects that are based on or at least reflect Lean thinking [96].

4.1.2. Innovative Cities in the Growth Triangle

The most famous early urban regeneration projects in Finland saw the light of day in Helsinki [102,103,104]. Since the 2010s, urban activism and self-organization developed in parallel with web-based communities and advocacy groups that wanted to leave their mark on urban planning [19,48]. After a few flagship area development projects, urban regeneration aspirations were consolidated into the Helsinki Innovation Districts project in 2020–2023, which marked a transition from high-profile greenfield developments towards mixed-use brownfield and suburban developments, facilitating the search for smart everyday solutions and the improvement of functionality in four socio-economically challenging suburban districts of Pasila, Malmi, Malminkartano, and Mellunkylä (A4). This turn brought with it lean solutions manifesting in green pop-ups installed in the Ylä-Malmi and Malminkartano squares in the summer of 2021. Agile pilots, temporary solutions, and participatory experiments became characteristic of the city of Helsinki (A4–A5). This paradigm shift is seen also in the major suburban regeneration program of Helsinki, which started in 2021 and is planned to be carried out until 2035 (A6).

In the capital region, the city of Espoo is known for its emphasis on innovation, smart and sustainable urban development [105], living lab processes [106], a public service ecosystem approach [107], and innovation ecosystem development [108]. Its neighbor, the city of Vantaa, is both a multi-polar residential city with a large number of immigrants and a logistics hub with the major airport of Finland, which divides its urban policies towards airport city development and responses to looming segregation challenges. Its development activities are in line with innovation and experimentation-oriented collaborative actions [109], which are particularly typical in the areas like the Myyrmäki residential area, which have been targets of both government-led and community-oriented renewal processes [110].

The city of Tampere focuses its urban regeneration on vitality and equality issues. Its regenerative actions are directed primarily to four areas: Hervanta, Multisilta-Peltolammi, Kaukajärvi-Annala, and Tesoma (A7). These have been chosen by the city government on the basis of socio-economic indicators, population, and the identified needs for greater collaboration and interventions. In terms of regeneration, special institutional efforts were included in the Peltolammi-Multisilta Residential Area Program for 2020–2022 that aimed at improving the wellbeing and attractiveness of this area (A8–A13). On the other hand, Tampere has emphasized a long-term commitment to the development of its city center under the Five-Star City Center development program, which was initiated in 2011 and will continue until 2040 or so (A14).

The coastal city of Turku is the oldest city in Finland. Today, it is a post-industrial welfarist city with a balanced view of the responses to economic, social, and environmental challenges. It aims at increasing the density of the city center and intensifying the use of coastal areas. One of the challenges faced by Turku is unequal urban development, which has a connection with multiculturality. It manifests in residential areas like Varissuo, which has a reputation as one of the most multicultural areas in the whole country [40,111,112].

4.2. Inclusion in Lean Urban Regeneration

Inclusion can have many manifestations in urban regeneration processes [113]. In the general sense, the urban development mode in Finnish cities is, at least in a formal sense, inclusive, participatory, and accessible. The case of Helsinki is illuminating in this respect. Both dimensions of spatio-temporal structures are present in Helsinki’s attempts to be an inclusive city [51,114]. Such aspirations are visible in the design of public spaces, which not only facilitate physical access but also create inclusion through design solutions, as with the cases of the market square of Ylä-Malmi (A15) and other similar marketplace design projects (A16) and the Esplanade experimental area (A17–A18). A similar kind of inclusive design has been practiced in other Finnish cities, too (e.g., A19). While physical planning can promote inclusion in various ways and reflect progressive rhetoric in urban planning and design, in such a context, the forms and effects of inclusion remain elusive. The situation changes when we focus on people, as the following discussion will show.

The intersection between urban regeneration and inclusionary policies among the case cities of this article are most visible in the regenerative activities of Helsinki. Such activities are, as a rule, directed to some target groups with inclusion policy objectives in mind. As an example of a light crowdsourcing process, we may mention people’s ability to voice their views in Maptionnaire surveys conducted on various occasions by the city government. A program targeted at specific target groups includes the promotion of the inclusion of senior citizens in the URBANAGE project, 2021–2024, which organized co-creation workshops and the usability testing of digital tools to ensure that urban planning meets the needs of older generations. Even if this project was based on a large program framework (https://www.urbanage.eu/), the program modules and division of labor enabled lean solutions in terms of organization and time frame. The youth budget is a participatory budgeting pilot targeted for young people. Another peculiar example of a target-group-specific approach is the opportunity to do voluntary work for the city of Helsinki upon the city government’s request (see

Table 2. Mini cases analyzed pertaining to the inclusion of different target groups in lean urban regeneration.

Project	Description	Target Group	City
Youth budget	Participatory budgeting framework that provides young people direct power to allocate funds for projects of their choice	Young people	Helsinki
Mansen Massit	Participatory budgeting process designed for the residents of city districts	Residents of city districts	Tampere
Park meal events	Free food is offered to young people in various urban parks in summertime	Children and young people	Tampere
Maptionnaire surveys	User-friendly online surveys that gather input from a wide range of residents on urban development issues	Residents	Helsinki
URBANAGE	Helsinki is involved in an EU project that uses the digital ecosystem and a Digital Twin of the city to foster inclusive urban planning for senior citizens	The elderly	Helsinki
Volunteer Helsinki	Registration of volunteers that can be used by the city government when helping hands are needed.	Volunteers	Helsinki

Sources: A20–A21, A23, A24, A25, A26, and A27.

).

In some cases, “inclusion” is combined with activities or actions, such as resource allocation, voicing opinion or a preference on some policy issue, or participating in some public event. In such cases, it is worth pondering whether inclusion is mainly just rhetoric or whether it promotes inclusion in a meaningful way. An interesting instance of such development at the intersection of participatory democracy and public finance is participatory budgeting. Tampere has initiated an inclusive participatory budgeting pilot called “Mansen Massit” (The Funds of Manchester of Finland), which allocates funding to agile development projects proposed by local people. The inclusive aspect is emphasized in different phases of the process, as in giving every resident the right to propose development activities and vote for them, and by providing local groups with a chance to participate in the implementation of subsequent activities decided in such a democratic process (A20). Helsinki has organized a similar kind of participatory budgeting processes for many years under the OmaStadi label (https://omastadi.hel.fi/) Such participatory budgeting processes that go beyond budget allocation decisions and invite people to participate in implementation have an obvious connection with co-creation.

Other examples of collaborative inclusion initiatives include the park meal events in which free food is offered to children and young people in different urban parks in summertime in Tampere. Urban parks serve as a kind of community dining area. For example, in the year 2025, almost 18,000 meals were distributed to a target group during seven weeks in seven parks, in collaboration with several local associations (A21).

Finally, it is worth remembering that if inclusion is understood as an actional, empowering set of activities, especially in the context of economic inclusion, it becomes fairly similar to the concept of co-creation. An example of such inclusionary tendencies can be found in the building of DIY skateparks in Tampere [115,116]. They will be discussed later as examples of co-creative urban regeneration (A22).

Representative examples experimented in the city of Helsinki and other major cities are presented in Table 2.

In all, as inclusion is a relational term, parameters such as who, what, and how are critical in determining what inclusion means in each given context. It can be about a generic community-wide compassion for all residents and other local stakeholders, or access granted to a special group regarding some process or benefit. It may also vary depending on whether it is about access-oriented physical inclusion, atmosphere as in making people feel welcome, or more actional or interaction-oriented inclusion processes. The mini cases discussed above show that the idealistic views of inclusion in terms of capability enhancement and related goal pursuit do not match with reality in the context of urban regeneration. Similarly, inclusion is at least rhetorically included in the justifications of many placemaking processes, but the inclusion it promotes tends to be fragmentary and superficial. The most productive inclusionary activities are directed to specific target groups, the most prominent among them being residents of city districts and different age groups. Regarding the theorization of inclusion in the urban context [45,50,51,57,58,59,60], the results show that the idea of inclusion frames most of the regenerative projects. Inclusion is commonly kept at an abstract level, while access-oriented inclusion is a rather modestly used form of inclusion. Another important theory-related insight is that the thematic core of inclusion is directed at specific stakeholder or target groups, producing diffused benefits to a few members of the community. Related to this, it is noteworthy that in terms of economic inclusion, there is no evidence of the wider scale of genuine community benefit distribution [51].

Theoretical views of inclusion in urban development are characteristically normative and ideological, which anchor them on ideal principles or morality rather than empirical evidence. Such a normative framework has found its way to local governments in liberal democracies. The mini cases actually verify, to some extent, the critical conclusions made by Ferilli and others [58]. Namely, they criticize the current public involvement in developed countries as being instrumental or ineffective and failing to involve most deprived constituencies, while giving better opportunities to those who are better off and familiar with existing institutional environments. In such a case, superficial rhetoric of inclusion and nominal participation may perpetuate existing inequalities [58]. While this holds especially in polarized societies, in the Finnish context, the welfare society is supposed to take care of the most vulnerable groups in society, while urban regeneration focusses often on generic target groups, such as residents and different age groups. The solution to the exclusion problem usually revolves around effective and equitable participation [59]. Such solutions are taken for granted, yet there is actually very little research on the premises, mechanisms, effectiveness, and long-term impacts of such an approach. General acceptability seems to have been sufficient to justify the relevance of inclusion in various contexts, which has reduced interest in delving deeper into its ontological and epistemological foundations [51]. While the previously discussed mini cases confirm that this approach is common in lean urban regeneration in Finland, a more detailed and nuanced picture requires further research on how inclusion is understood and operationalized in local government. Overall, these results question the straightforward assumption about the productive role of the application of the general principle of inclusion or target group-driven inclusionary interventions in the renewal of large cities. This is essentially a design challenge that is yet to be met.

4.3. Sharing in Lean Urban Regeneration

Finland was one of the European pioneers in the sustainable and circular economy, and sharing has become part of this agenda. Almost every citizen in the country has some experience of sharing, but its role in the economy is still modest. Sharing takes many shapes, including flea markets and auctions, various forms of exchanging or donating goods (shops, platforms, and online marketplaces), dealing with food waste, direct selling, the short-term rental of apartments, sharing living space, shared bikes and cars, and shared working environments. (A28)

Local governments are directly involved in the sharing economy primarily through sharing publicly owned premises or facilities on the one hand, and lending items, tools, and equipment in public libraries on the other. In addition, local governments promote sharing through awareness campaigns and platforms. There are also dedicated attempts to go beyond libraries, as in the case of the city of Tampere, in which the city government invites local communities and companies to participate in the campaign launched by the Carbon Neutral Actions development program by providing opportunities for city residents to share goods and vehicles in various city districts. All registered communities and companies will receive a campaign material package prepared by the city government and can publicize the opportunities they offer as a part of the city’s campaign on their electronic channels or in their offices (A32).

Sharing and volunteering is integrated into wellbeing-oriented regeneration in the city of Vantaa in Suburbs in Motion (Lähiöt liikkeessä) subproject. It is part of the Positive Affirmative Action program of 2023–2025, which consists of two parts: school sports team activities and residential area exercise coaching (Lähiliikuttajat). The latter includes sharing that is organized in collaboration with the city library in the form of an exercise equipment lending shop (Liikuntalainaamo), where residents are able to lend various kinds of home and outdoor fitness equipment and tools (A33). This is an example of the case in which sharing is a supplementary part of a larger set of integrated activities. It combines sharing with co-creation. The same can be said about the upcycling workshops (Tuunauspajat) in the city of Vantaa, which utilize the sharing of facilities and equipment. It is an experiment that involves the development of cooperation with associations and residents in organizing upcycling workshops. The city government provides facilities for the workshops, such as technical classrooms and equipment available in schools, whereas the non-profit associations act as the instructors and supervisors of the activities in question. The above-mentioned sharing-related activities are summarized in

Table 3. Mini cases analyzed pertaining to sharing in lean urban regeneration.

Form of Sharing	Description	Local Cases
Bike sharing	Municipal city bikes are a shared mobility service where a local government offers bicycles for use by those traveling in the area for a fee.	Helsinki, Tampere, and Turku
Municipal premises and facilities	Local government provides buildings, streets, and open spaces for different groups for free or at a low cost.	Local governments in different parts of the country
Library facilities	Libraries offer affordable or free facilities for leisure, hobbies, work, or studies.	Municipalities throughout the country
Sharing in libraries	Libraries offer goods, tools and equipment for library users for free, including books and electronic materials, games, Frisbee golf disks, 3D printers, game consoles, drilling machines and other tools, exercise equipment, etc.	Public libraries in different parts of Finland, each providing a different set of services
Exercise equipment lending shop	Exercise equipment lending shop in library as a part of residential area exercise coaching project	The city of Vantaa
Low-cost renting of tools in city districts	In 2024, Tampere started an experiment to rent leisure and outdoor equipment and tools and a cargo bike in Tesoma, Linnainmaa, and Vuores city districts.	The city of Tampere

Sources: A29–A33.

.

To sum up, sharing in lean urban regeneration is centered around public libraries in Finland. Practically all local governments are involved in sharing as initiators, facilitators, and coordinators, even though the scale of activities is rather small. Sharing has expanded from books and digital materials to tools and facilities. Such activities are genuinely lean in terms of resources, spaces, or actions. The impact of sharing may be modest, but it nevertheless has an enabling and catalytic potential, which ultimately connects the act of sharing to its higher purpose. It is important to note that sharing is used at times as a complementary activity in hybrid participatory processes. Regarding outcomes, while sharing in urban regeneration has an obvious sustainability dimension and a connection with the circular economy, its primary potential lies in fostering community wellbeing and social integration through common understanding that emanates from ephemeral, small-scale material relationalities, which ultimately establish the foundation for an interconnected resource-efficient community.

Sharing city discourse is characterized by polysemy [65,67], a lack of evidence regarding the impact of sharing city policy [68], and somewhat discouraging assessments of its transformative [65] and future potential [68]. Sharing has peculiar challenges in cities, for the integrative views on sharing in smaller communities [69] do not apply to urban context due to its complexity, while on the other hand, a critical mass of sharers has a potential to bring about system-level impacts. The results indicate that most of the relevant initiatives are organized at the city district level, which forms a functional unit of sharing in lean urban regeneration. In terms of the local government’s role in promoting sharing, the interventions in Finnish cities do not demonstrate clear trends or features identified in prior research [67], except a possible long-term transition from governing by regulation and provision towards an enabling role. There is actually a paradox here, for transition from government to governance has been one of the most dominating trends in the public administration in the developed world, yet in lean urban regeneration, institutional embeddedness is tight.

4.4. Co-Creation in Lean Urban Regeneration

Co-creation is among the most important ways of involving local residents and other stakeholders in lean urban regeneration. It includes actional, creative, and constructive dimensions that increase the impact of stakeholder involvement and harnesses the local capacity and know-how in improving and revitalizing urban areas. Such practices may include agile pilots that integrate food systems into urban life, agile piloting programs and community-driven ventures, such as Blokgarden (https://www.blokgarden.com/), and placemaking projects in which residents usually have a somewhat low profile, as in the case of the Street Smarts piloting program in Helsinki (A34, A5). The latter piloted an interactive color lighting control system for outdoor areas and street space analytics in Malmi in autumn 2022. In this case, residents were able to influence the color and color temperature of the lighting (A5). It exemplifies the case in which agile actions may lead to changes in the urban environment that are aligned with residents’ preferences. All such lean actions are part of a wider framework that the city of Helsinki has been building for years. It revolves around a pragmatic idea that unfolds from the methodic core (A5) to the idea of a city as a living lab (A4, A35), which evolved as an instance of a progressive welfare society. Such a multi-layered framework gives individual interventions meaning in a wider setting.

Co-creative placemaking projects are often multi-modal or hybrid, which puts their actions into a wider operational framework. This approach is exemplified by the activities of the city of Tampere within the WeGenerate project in 2023–2027, financed by the EU. Its purpose is to find solutions for the sustainable and inclusive regeneration of neighborhoods (https://wegenerate.eu/). Tampere is one of four demo cities involved in this project. The idea is to catalyze civic ownership of urban regeneration processes through the direct involvement of local people. Regarding actions, the main focus is “to revitalise the Tampere city centre to make it walking-friendly in order to bring back people and businesses” (A36). Transformative actions include the facilitation of the co-creation of walkable city around Laikunlava’s open-air stage and station area green spaces, supplemented by the development of apps and maps to enhance walkability and the urban experience (A36).

A particular feature of many co-creative regeneration projects is that they are firmly anchored in and conditioned by local institutional settings. They are sometimes closely linked with economic inclusion and local economic development. A good example of such institutionally embedded stakeholder- and partnership-oriented urban regeneration is the Sustainable Future Neighborhoods experimentation program of the city of Espoo, which started in 2023 and will run until 2026. It aims to develop and test new solutions to increase sustainable mobility and urban nature. It involves local firms for networking and co-developing sustainable solutions. Solutions accepted by the program are to be tested in real urban environments in Kera and other city districts. The program refers to co-creation and citizen participation as rhetorically appealing features, yet actual participatory processes are described only superficially (A37–A38).

Other paradigmatic cases of institutional embeddedness of co-creation are projects that are connected to land use planning and zoning. Usually, such processes are not particularly agile due to regulatory requirements and democratic control. In this context, the city of Espoo has applied a co-creation model for developing positive energy district (PED) solutions, and a Digital Twin tool for data sharing and collaboration in the Kera district. Kera has been undergoing a transformation from a former industrial and mass logistics area into a future mixed-use urban district with significant emphasis on sustainability and circular economy targets [105]. Area development activities in Kera aim to improve stakeholder involvement and co-production with a special view to landowners. Its development resembles, in this respect, a partnership-based development model, which is smoothened through negotiations, contractual relations, facilitation, and the utilization of digital tools (A39). These kinds of processes may contain some lean elements, but they are nevertheless conditioned by local politics, bureaucracy, and the regulatory framework.

Another family of co-creative lean regenerative projects are those that have a connection with inclusion, and especially economic inclusion. A project that contributes to inclusive co-creation in Helsinki is the RAMMAUS project, which is based on the idea that adolescents are hired by the city government and companies for infrastructure projects in disadvantaged neighborhoods, which is supposed to provide employment that is at the same time a direct venue to shaping young people’s own living environments. This project is launched in designated suburban regeneration areas (A40).

In some instances, co-creation takes place at the intersection of partnership governance and economic development. A case in point is the city of Tampere, which has for some time paid special attention to the development of disadvantaged city districts (A7–A13). Agile experimentations have become a visible part of such endeavors since the 2010s with a special view to local business–community interaction. An excellent early initiative that reflects such a premise is Koklaamo, implemented in a Tesoma city district in 2016–2018. It was a lean urban regeneration platform, which applied a Lean Service Creation (LSC) design model in its workshops [117]. More recently, Business Tampere has initiated experiments where companies co-create growth opportunities (A41). Another case is an EU-funded international Multiplicative Imagination of Citizens and Stakeholders towards the 15 min City (MULTIGINATION) project 2024–2026, which provides innovative tools for empowering the multiplicative imagination of public spaces and streets, leading to actual urban interventions towards sustainability. The project pilots “a new marketplace where companies can bring their urban products to the attention of procurement decision-makers. Residents can propose products to the marketplace and comment on their functionality” (A42).

Lastly, a radical approach to co-creation shifts the process outside the local public policy framework and economic development, towards citizen governance and tactical or DIY urbanism. Such cases are usually based on multimodal participatory processes or hybrid governance. The most well-known among DIY skatepark cases in Tampere is Kenneli DIY skatepark in the Hiedanranta area. In the project, an old industrial building was converted into a the largest indoor skatepark in Finland. The critical factor in the whole process was the local skateboard community, which put in a lot of effort to make the new park a reality. Regarding the project, the rental agreement was cheap for the skateboarding association, while as a kind of compensation, the city government expected events and visibility, motivated by the marketing and development of the Hiedanranta area. Another special feature of this project was that some 20 unemployed skateboarders were trained to build skateparks during the construction project. Similar kinds of skatepark developments also emerged in other parts of the city. They show how urban infrastructures and abandoned places may become important learning cases to special groups, contribute to the improvement of urban amenities, serve as a catalyst for building partnerships, and attach local people to their evolving environment. They also offer opportunities to improve the skills and employability of young people, provide new niche areas for local economic development, and teach about the real-life preconditions for inclusive urban economic growth [115,116]. In this particular case, the tourism development agency Visit Tampere utilized the quickly evolved skateboarding scene in its city marketing story, portraying Tampere as a skater’s heaven (A22).

Examples of co-creation in lean urban regeneration are summarized in

Table 4. Mini cases analyzed pertaining to co-creation in lean urban regeneration.

Project	Description	Local Cases
Street Smarts piloting program	Pilot of an interactive color lighting control system for outdoor areas in Malmi in autumn 2022.	Malmi city district in Helsinki
RAMMAUS Project	Young people are hired by the city government and companies for infrastructure projects in certain neighborhoods.	Suburban regeneration areas in the city of Helsinki
MULTIGINATION Project	Using innovative tools for empowering the multiplicative imagination of public spaces and streets, leading to actual urban interventions towards sustainability.	City of Tampere
WeGenerate Project	EU-funded international project that creates solutions for the sustainable, resilient, inclusive and accessible regeneration of neighborhoods, focusing on a walkable and revitalized city center.	City of Tampere
City district of Kera	Flexible agreement-based redevelopment of a city district in collaboration between the city government and landowners.	City of Espoo
Kenneli DIY skatepark	Building and operating an indoor skatepark on a DIY and partnership basis in the Hiedanranta area in Tampere.	City of Tampere

Sources: A5, A22, A36, A38–A39, and A42.

.

In brief, co-creation in lean urban regeneration is a commonly used modus that has several manifestations. Its social ontological essence is in its actional mode that naturally creates a “sociokinetic” connection between the participating subject and the community, mediated by the type of activity that determines the scope or form of input provided by a resident or other stakeholder. In an ideal case, co-creation facilitates innovations that promote urban transitions, and real-life cases justify this view to a degree. At the same time, multiple mini cases do not give the impression of particularly open and creative processes, let alone of a great deal of local self-organization. Rather, most co-creation processes are operationally backed up by some unit of the city government, which tends to confine activities to institutionally defined boundaries. There are exceptions, however, such as the case of the Kenneli DIY skatepark in Tampere. It represents instances that operate at the intersection of lean urban regeneration and tactical urbanism.

The results of the above discussion bring intriguing nuances to the theorization of co-creation. It is worth noting that in the context of urban development such theorizing is primarily conceptual and normative, highlighting, for example, emerging opportunities, the identification of factors that are conducive to smooth co-creation processes, and collaboration and inclusion as preconditions for successful co-creation [70,72,74,75,76]. Normative ideas drawn from existing research are more or less in line with the premises and findings of this article. For example, the results above largely support the insights presented by Mahmoud and others regarding the need for iterative, flexible, and open co-creation processes and inspiring solutions that boost urban transformation [76]. They are also in line with observations from real-life mini cases, which suggest that inclusion is a prerequisite for co-creation, as it helps to empower local stakeholders, integrate local knowledge, and strengthen the place-based ownership, especially with a view to long-term commitment to urban development [76]. On the other hand, narrowly defined lean interventions facilitated by local government tend to rely on specific incentives and favor narrow frameworks set within individual development projects, which undermines their integration into broader frameworks and may thus limit the potential for transformative outcomes.

From the broad political perspective, the confinement to a local institutional context is a double-edged sword, for while a high degree of self-determination is likely to improve opportunities for harnessing local creativity, collective responses to contextual issues and development challenges are political by nature, not to speak of decisions about whose problems are addressed in local policies, which should be decided within a local democratic system [70]. This is an issue that relates to the relationship between institutionally oriented lean urban regeneration and tactical or DIY urbanism. Furthermore, theorizations of co-creation give great importance to generative governance as well as the increased capacity to solve complex problems by utilizing the knowledge and capabilities of people with diverse backgrounds [70,74]. In this respect, the Finnish mini cases suggest that in reality, democratic inputs may play a more dominant role in project design than innovative outcomes. A unique aspect of lean comes into the picture when discussing obstacles or hindrances to co-creation, such as path-dependence, safety concerns, and expected future developments in the demographic and urban development structure [72], for they are mostly outside the radar of lean urban development. Moreover, even if citizens as co-creators may contribute to local development through co-initiation, co-design, and co-implementation [70], our results show that lean urban development projects in the institutionally mature context keep the role of co-initiation modest. This is probably because interventions are usually designed by local government units or publicly funded projects before local stakeholders are involved. From this, we can derive the hypothesis that in the given institutional context, the co-creation in lean urban regeneration tends to have primarily either nominal or instrumental tone.

5. Discussion

The results of the analysis of multiple real-life mini cases show that lean urban regeneration has become an important part of urban development in the largest cities in Finland. Finland’s openness to the culture of experimentation and the large pool of local development projects funded by local, national, and European sources creates a fertile soil for lean development projects.

Inclusion is an inherent part of most urban regenerative projects. However, it is a rather abstract principle. It sounds appealing in predominantly progressive urban development projects but remains rather vague in terms of determining the course of regenerative actions. Its role in implementing, let’s say, placemaking processes, is elusive, even though it adds a particular appealing flavor to the justification of local projects and may create a welcoming atmosphere. However, inclusionary policies become meaningful and feasible especially when connected with specific target groups or clearly defined activities. For example, the decentralization of decision-making power in the form of participatory budgeting can be seen as an inclusive response to the immediate development needs of city districts (cf. [118]). Inclusionary policies have their downside, too, for they may lead to the overemphasis of some groups over others, amplify bias in local interest representation, and reduce the sense of unity [51]. It takes us back to the ideological roots and conceptualization of inclusion [119]. Especially in the context of liberal welfare societies, one-sided progressive views on inclusion should be balanced with the urban government’s mission of creating unity among local stakeholders, and emphasizing equality of opportunity, respect of democracy, and the rule of law as the common ground that enables local democratic dialog on how to respond to urban challenges (cf. [114]).

Sharing is a modality that brings input from public, private, and civic sectors into urban regeneration. It involves people in urban development in the mode of purposeful exchanges or joint use. The Finnish mini cases show, first, that sharing is on many occasions accompanied by other forms of stakeholder engagement, giving it, as a whole, a limited role in participatory development projects, and second, that its institutional landmark in the given societal context is a local public library. The practical utility of public libraries lies in the fact that they are present in every local government jurisdiction and most of the residents have used their services. Current practices have their own shortcomings, however, because sharing in urban regeneration does not occur dynamically between local inhabitants or small businesses, but rather reflects the collective organization of sharing through local government. While the promotional activities of libraries may be an important step forward in terms of collecting experiences and learning about sharing, it does not effectively harness the potential of the urban community. A radical change would require a paradigm shift, which mainstreams the principle of sharing and reshapes relevant community processes, thus creating a foundation for a resource-efficient community [120,121].

Co-creation is among the most visible, widely applied, and internally diverse instances of local stakeholder involvement in lean urban regeneration. Illustrative mini cases highlight such themes as various forms of co-creative placemaking, the anchoring of co-creation in a local institutional setting, directing co-creative regeneration towards economic inclusion, creating business partnerships through co-creation, and utilizing activities that reflect self-organization or tactical urbanism. One of the fundamental aspects of the pursuit of neighborhood development is its ability to provide a feeling of being able to contribute to the development of local milieu or the revitalization of a residential area. Local actors’ role may be modest, but it may still be meaningful (cf. [122]). It is also worth emphasizing that such measures are usually tightly integrated into the local institutional framework, which seems to be characteristic to Finnish cities. From the economic point of view, co-creative regeneration often pursues either economic inclusion or local economic development. Regarding economic inclusion, the idea behind the RAMMAUS project of the city of Helsinki is a direct way of combining economic inclusion and co-creation as inbuilt elements of urban regeneration. A more radical take on inclusive development is seen in the Kenneli DIY skatepark project in Tampere. It exemplifies the type of cases that rely on enthusiasm and DIY culture and produces results in a generative interplay between activists and the city government [115,116]. Regenerative co-creation appears as a rule as some kind of processual hybrid, which utilizes inclusion, sharing or other principles or modes of stakeholder engagement in a multi-phase co-creation process. Such a hybridity increases potentially synergistic effects, catalytic impacts, and leverage in urban regeneration. This finding is consistent with previous research, which has found out that in order to realize the participatory potential of co-creation, it is essential to acknowledge the heterogeneity of citizens and seriously address the issues of social justice and inclusion [123].

Regarding the political economy of inclusion, sharing, and co-creation in lean urban regeneration, there is a widely shared view among Finnish city governments that local authorities are expected to reduce inequalities in cities within the welfare society framework. Lean urban regeneration fits well into this picture, as it requires fewer resources and has a shorter time span than conventional large-scale urban development projects. Lean brings obvious benefits through its low threshold, which allows small-scale interventions in several city districts or residential areas simultaneously. It brings regenerative activities close to residents’ everyday lives and milieus. However, an inherent risk is that such activities become performative and are assessed on the basis of their visibility rather than factual impacts. Moreover, if activities are generic or preventive rather than tailored remedial interventions, this reduces the chances to set quantitative goals and measure the impacts, which poses an obvious managerial challenge. Lastly, the objectives and activities of lean urban projects are mostly incremental, which implies that their impacts are not likely to be particularly radical or transformative. Furthermore, they rarely directly improve the economic situation of socio-economically disadvantaged groups. This argues in favor of exploring the potential of the idea of medium-scale hybrid urban regeneration anchored on economic inclusion as a catalyst for structural transformation.

6. Conclusions

The objective of this article is to identify the emerging forms of lean urban regeneration in the progressive welfare society with a focus on citizen and stakeholder involvement through inclusion, sharing, and co-creation. Empirical analysis builds on several mini cases of large Finnish cities, those of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Turku, and Tampere.

Lean urban regeneration fits well into the Finnish urban development scene, which hints at its potential applicability to other developed countries as well. While there is a risk that such activities will become performative due to their lean operational mode, the lean approach allows the piecemeal tackling of urban problems and division of resource allocations between several small-scale interventions. Most notably, it brings regenerative activities close to residents’ everyday life, encouraging local stakeholders’ participation in the development of their communities. While such activities have a positive impact on different parts of the city and give residents and other stakeholders a say in the development processes, the evidence suggests that their impact on structural urban problems remain modest. As lean regenerative actions are usually project-based and focus on selective target groups or areas, their impacts tend to be short-lived and affect only a small portion of the local population. Furthermore, their link to formal urban planning is typically tenuous, although—paradoxically—they are quite tightly conditioned by the local institutional framework.

Regarding the principles of stakeholder involvement, inclusion is a general category, which frames much of the urban development policies in a welfare society context. It becomes operational if it is clearly defined in terms of the target group or activity area. Sharing is an underutilized category, which works in lean urban regeneration primarily through public libraries. It has, at the moment, a supplementary role in regenerative development. It comes close to citizens’ everyday life but has a rather modest role in the big picture of urban development. Of the three concepts discussed in this article, co-creation is the primary form of stakeholder involvement in lean urban regeneration. Many forms of co-creation are reminiscent of hybrid governance, which emerge as phased multimodal development processes in which various aspects of stakeholder involvement are utilized, as with cases like the DIY skateparks in Tampere, the RAMMAUS project in the city of Helsinki, and the upcycling workshops and residential area exercise coaching in the city of Vantaa.

Even if the results of this analysis are not conclusive, they hint that a particularly great potential can be attached to those hybrid projects that are able to integrate political and economic inclusion into hands-on urban development. In other words, the particular potential of lean interventions is based on the co-creation guided by economic inclusion as a key framing principle, which, by utilizing the input of residents, entrepreneurs, and other local stakeholders, opens up opportunities for development that alleviates structural urban problems. Such an integrative view of lean urban regeneration is a novel contribution to urban regeneration research. The new ideas presented in this study can serve as inspiration for the open-minded leaders, managers, and developers of large cities struggling with urban development challenges in different societal contexts.

The main limitation of this study is due to the MMCS methodology, which leads to the risk of subjectivity in the interpretation of data, cherry-picking of cases, and limited generalizability of findings. This was addressed by relying on sophisticated principles of mini case studies methodology and strong reliance on prior theorization and prior case studies, which secure the validity and reliability of the results through a sufficient level of coherence. Also, the mini cases were mapped out from a large pool of urban development projects of case cities, which provided a firm basis for selecting illustrative examples, from which the general patterns and features of lean urban regeneration were derived.