Green, Blue and Smart: Institutional Work in the Creation of a Multifunctional Infrastructural Space

ABSTRACT

The spaces created by urban infrastructure are being reimagined as multifunctional urban places. This paper explores the creation of a green, blue and smart infrastructural space, the Wharf Street Next Generation Community Park (WSNGCP) in Perth, WA. The research uses a multiple method approach to understand the types of institutional work – maintaining, creating or disrupting – that were employed in the creation of the WSNGCP. The research shows that multifunctional urban space is dynamic, andpolicymakers, planners and designers could focus on thresholds as areas of contention to facilitate and negotiate the interests of various institutional actors.

城市基础设施所创造的空间正在被重新规划为多功能的城市场所。本文探讨了西澳大利亚州珀斯市（WSNGCP） ，一个绿色、蓝色和智能基础设施空间的创建过程。本研究采用了多种方法了解在创建 WSNGCP 过程中所采用的机构工作类型——维护、创建或破坏。本研究的结果表明，多功能城市空间是动态的，政策制定者、规划师和设计师可以将阈值作为争议焦点，以促进和协商不同机构参与者的利益。

KEYWORDS:

• Institutional work
• multifunctional
• institutional change
• green infrastructure
• blue infrastructure
• smart cities

1. Introduction

The capacity for infrastructure to support liveable, viable and ecologically sustainable cities is challenged by climate change and the pressures from increased urbanisation. The institutions responsible for the planning and management of urban infrastructure that emerged in the twentieth century were traditionally grounded in a techno-managerial logic (Graham and Marvin 2022). Consequently, urban infrastructure has tended to fulfil a narrow range of functions and subject to strict control measures by large bureaucratic agencies. More recently, neoliberal urban governance has increased the presence of private sector interests in the governance of urban infrastructure, rendering the functions of urban infrastructure more fragmented and dislocated from public-led strategic planning (Alizadeh et al. 2022). However, the technocratic and neoliberal paradigms underpinning infrastructural institutions are being challenged by the complexities and uncertainties facing contemporary and future cities (Ferguson et al. 2013; Alizadeh et al. 2022). To address the need for new approaches to the planning, governance, and management of infrastructure in Australian cities, there has been an increased focus on critical urban infrastructure within fragmented and politically charged urban governance contexts (Steele and Legacy 2017). This work has encompassed a range of networked urban infrastructure, including transportation systems (Legacy et al. 2017), stormwater drainage (Farrelly and Brown 2011), green infrastructure (Ambrey et al. 2017) and telecommunications (Alizadeh and Shearer 2015). It is now accepted, as Ferguson et al. (2013, p. 33) state that to meet societal needs and adapt to unpredictable future states, urban infrastructure needs to be reframed as “inherently complex, comprising multiple objectives and interlinked technological, ecological, spatial, social, institutional, economic and political dimensions”.

One way that urban infrastructure is being repositioned to address diversifying needs and demands is by becoming more multifunctional. The multifunctionality of urban infrastructure refers to a broadening of the functions served by the various urban spaces created by infrastructural networks, such as telecommunications, energy, transportation, and stormwater infrastructure. Traditional approaches to the management of these infrastructural spaces have prioritised the mitigation of risks and consequently restricted public access. However, the pressures associated with increased urbanisation have led to an interest in enhancing the multifunctionality of urban areas, infrastructures, and the spaces they produce (Priemus and Hall 2004; van Broekhoven and Vernay 2018). The pathways to enhance the multifunctionality of urban infrastructure are not clear though. Multifunctionality often needs to be carefully fostered (Madureira and Andresen 2014) and involves trade-offs between various functions (Meerow and Newell 2017). A common approach to regenerating infrastructural spaces is through urban experimentation, involving novel approaches to demonstrate the success of schemes and influence system-wide transformations and achieve more sustainable outcomes (Fuenfschilling et al. 2019). However, despite the associations with innovation, urban experiments are often instigated within incumbent institutional logics and the urban experimentation can fail to extend beyond the initial project or produce institutional orders that lock in sub-optimal conditions (Savini and Bertolini 2019).

This research draws on the concept of institutional work to investigate a case study of the creation of multifunctional infrastructural space in Perth, Western Australia. The Wharf Street Next Generation Community Park (WSNGCP) was created when a previously inaccessible stormwater drain was converted into a “smart community park”. The project was realised with a grant from the Australian Federal Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs scheme, which awarded $50 million in grants to local governments to deliver projects framed within an urban innovation agenda. The case study illustrates the challenges and opportunities to create multifunctional infrastructural spaces, drawing on the concept of institutional work to explore the dynamics of change and continuation in institutional orders. The paper begins by connecting literature on multifunctional urban space with the concept of institutional work. It does this by framing multifunctionality through the themes of green, blue, and smart infrastructure, anticipating the various functions sought in the WSNGCP project. The research approach is then described, setting out a case study methodology that draws on a range of qualitative research methods and a conceptual framework outlining the theoretical framing of institutional work that was conducted to create the WSNGCP. A project-mapping analysis is presented to outline the evolution of the project before the findings are discussed and implications developed for supporting greater multifunctionality of urban infrastructure.

2. The Functions of Infrastructural Spaces: Green, Blue and Smart

There is now a greater appreciation of the value of urban ecologies and natural spaces in cities in the wake of biodiversity and habitat loss, leading to a greater variety of urban spaces being identified as potential sites for urban greening (Madureira and Andresen 2014). Multifunctionality of urban spaces is also seen as a way of improving urban resilience, with spaces being redesigned to accommodate a range of social needs and functions to enhance the capacity for cities to adapt to a range of risks associated with greater uncertainty and complexity (Meerow and Newell 2017). Additionally, the policy goal of urban consolidation is increasing demand for urban resources and services, like parks and public spaces as populations grow and urban development intensifies (Artmann et al. 2019). The increased interest in the multifunctionality of urban infrastructural spaces is reflected in the concepts of green, blue and smart infrastructure.

The concept of green infrastructure (GI) captures the intentional enhancement and management of networks of urban spaces to support urban greening initiatives (Ambrey et al. 2017; Chatzimentor et al. 2020). GI is commonly adopted within a variety of urban infrastructural spaces, including streets and verges, public parks, private land, and public utility land. GI addresses key elements of biophilic urban principles and often forms central parts of urban greening strategies (Thomson and Newman 2021). The benefits of increased urban greening include carbon sequestration and reduction in energy consumption; mitigation of urban heat island effects through shading of hard surfaces; the provision of restorative, recreational and social spaces for people; and increased habitat for biodiversity (Kim and Song 2019). The connection between multifunctionality and GI is evident in the European Union’s GI strategy inclusion of multifunctionality as one of its principal components (Hansen and Pauleit 2014). However, the planning, production and management of GI often obscures questions of who or what belongs in green spaces, and there are calls for greater political responsiveness to issues of social equity and justice for multispecies in green spaces and GI (Phillips and Atchison 2020; Cooke 2020).

The diversification of functions associated with stormwater drainage infrastructure is another example of how urban infrastructure is being refashioned to accommodate an increasingly complex range of needs and risks in modern cities (Brown et al. 2009). Traditional approaches to managing urban stormwater infrastructure have prioritised the conveyance of stormwater to mitigate flooding risk as the primary function of infrastructure and the infrastructural spaces produced usually restrict public access in the interest of safety and risk management. The use of urban greening strategies within spaces traditionally set aside for the management of urban water systems for stormwater conveyance, wastewater or potable water sources is encompassed in both the concepts of blue/green infrastructure (BGI) and water-sensitive urban design (Coutts et al. 2013). These approaches to the design of urban infrastructure offer a range of functions including mitigating the impacts of floods and droughts, improving water quality and supporting habitat for water-dependent flora and fauna, as well as strengthening synergies with urban greening initiatives. The implementation of BGI is often challenged by the legacy of the techno-managerial approach that prevailed under modern regimes of urban stormwater management. In a study of the barriers to implementing BGI in UK cities, O’Donnell et al. (2017) found that socio-political factors, including the reluctance of institutional actors to change practices, ineffective working relations and restrictive legislation and regulation, were the most common types of barriers mentioned by professionals.

The use of digital technologies to support urban infrastructure, services, and various functions, often framed within the discourse of “smart cities” offers further possibilities for supporting multifunctional infrastructural spaces. Smart city urban initiatives promote a range of functions that can be enhanced through digital technologies, including monitoring and surveillance; communicating information with digital signage to assist in wayfinding; enhancing a sense of place using digital narratives; and increasing efficiencies in the maintenance and management of spaces. There is evidence that digital technologies are more and more being used to support a range of green and blue infrastructure approaches, including urban forest management (Prebble et al. 2021), nature-based solutions in stormwater management (Brasil et al. 2022) and a wide variety of public open space (Smaniotto Costa et al. 2019). In 2016, the Australian Government’s Smart Cities Plan set out a scheme for “smart” investment, policy, and technology to support liveable and accessible cities (Hu 2020). As part of this plan, the Smart Cities and Suburbs scheme saw $50 million invested in a range of local government projects. In an overview of the projects that received funding in Sydney and Melbourne, Dowling et al. (2019) found that whilst most local governments were implementing schemes in an ad hoc manner, local governments that had a formal smart city or digital strategy in place were more likely to implement technologies across multiple domains (governance, living, mobility, environment, economy, and people).

The successful planning and integration of functions across these multiple domains in urban infrastructural space is dependent on the presence of supportive institutions. The integration of urban greening initiatives, stormwater management and digital technologies within urban places encompasses a complex network of property, civic and state institutions, spanning the planning, financing, design and ongoing management of projects and sites. Sorensen (2018) identifies infrastructure as one of three types of institutions that are influential in shaping urban space. Institutional actors in urban infrastructure often include large government bureaucracies that are risk averse and subject to path dependencies (Dobie et al. 2014), municipal actors (Liu et al. 2019), advocates and entrepreneurs (Coffey et al. 2020), and the private sector (Dodson 2017). Urban infrastructural institutions also exist in relation to two other types of institutional domains: governance and property institutions. Local governments are key institutional actors that can play multiple roles in the planning and production of BGI infrastructure and digital urbanism. As McGuirk et al. (2021) comment, smart city urban initiatives reconfigure and reorientate traditional institutional structures within municipalities, with municipal actors employing both traditionally entrepreneurial work to attract investment, as well as work towards remodelling internal practices to support smart urbanism. Municipal institutions also overlap with community interests, evident in the increased public participation in the planning and management of blue–green infrastructure (Coffey et al. 2020). Land and property institutions encompass the range of laws and regulations governing urban development, land tenure and property systems, as well as the practices and processes related to spatial planning. An analysis of the capacity for multifunctional infrastructure must consider the relationships between these different institutional domains.

3. Institutional Work and Multifunctional Urban Spaces

The new institutional theory offers a range of insights into institutions, defined as the formal and informal rule structures that enable and constrain collective action (Lowndes and Roberts 2013). Institutions can be conceived as three interrelated elements: rules and formal prescriptions; practices and routinised actions; and narratives that reflect shared understandings regarding institutional boundaries (Lowndes and Roberts 2013, pp. 171–172). The concept of institutional work is an actor-focused branch of new institutional theory. Lawrence and Suddaby (2006, p. 215) define institutional work as “the purposive action of individuals and organisations aimed at creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions”. Institutional work is carried out at the interface of structure and agency, where actors reproduce, challenge, and create the rules and narratives that constrain and enable collective action. Insight into institutional work offers insight into the transformative and collaborative practices necessary to challenge existing logics, structures and “silos” that are presented in the creation of multifunctional infrastructural space (Broccardo et al. 2019).

Institutional work shares similarities with other theoretical approaches concerned with change in institutions. Institutional entrepreneurialism is an actor-focused field of institutional studies, emphasising the agency of individuals within institutional fields to drive changes, often highly valued goals (DiMaggio 1988). Rather than change being driven by exogenous factors, studies that draw upon institutional entrepreneurialism focus on endogenous drivers of change, or changes that emerge due to drivers within institutions (Pacheo et al. 2010). Studies in this field are often concerned with the way institutional actors operationalise and command resources to achieve change in response to a perceived inadequacy in the current situation. However, institutional entrepreneurialism has been criticised due to its tendency to disregard the diverse ways in which agents act within institutions to, not only bring about change but also to act towards other goals (Lawrence et al. 2009).

The concept of institutional work is useful because it accommodates the broader set of motivations that may exist in the production of multifunctional infrastructural space. Beunen and Patterson (2019) explain that institutional work draws attention to the diverse activities of institutional actors, rather than the outcomes of intentional change, and through this focus on means rather than ends, institutional work shines a light on the “ambiguous, political, contested, and dynamic nature of efforts to bring about institutional change” (2019, p. 19). In a case study of an urban forest strategy in Melbourne, Australia, Frantzeskaki and Bush (2021) show how institutional actors can inhabit diverse roles in creating institutional spaces for mainstreaming multifunctional urban places and these roles can be dynamic and evolve over time. However, as Beunen and Patterson (2019, p. 18) contend, institutional work “ … should not be seen as a singular explanatory factor that can be easily distinguished from a plethora of other drivers and dynamics shaping environmental governance”. Distinguishing contextual, exogenous factors that play a role in shaping the way that institutions take form and change is important when drawing lessons for the broader development of multifunctional space.

4. Research Approach

This paper reports on a case study concerning the transformation of a fenced stormwater drain into a “smart community park” in Perth, Western Australia. The case study approach was used to highlight the type of institutional work that occurs in the creation of multifunctional infrastructural spaces. The Wharf Street Next Generation Community Park (WSNGCP) is situated in the Canning City Centre in Cannington, a middle ring suburb east of the Perth city centre. The project was delivered in the context of master planning for the Canning City Centre, which had identified several stormwater drainage assets as sites for conversion into “living drains”. The project received funding from the Australian government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs scheme, which allocated $50 million across eighty-three projects to “apply smart technology, data-driven decision making and people-focused design to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits in metropolitan and regional urban centres” (Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2018, p. 2).

A theoretical framework was developed to guide the data collection and analysis drawing on intended functional elements of the park, institutional elements and type of institutional work carried out to produce the WSNGCP. Technological functions (smart), landscape, amenity, and ecological functions (green) and stormwater hydrological function (blue) were identified as the three functional domains that underpinned the creation of multifunctional space in the WSNGCP. Institutions were conceptualised according to Lowndes and Robert’s (2013) three modes of institutions (rules, practices, narratives). Rules were identified as formal, written directions that define or limit institutional work, such as legislation and policy. Practices were identified as informal but routinised organisational routines (Uittenbroek 2016) that shaped characteristics of institutional work, including meetings and procedures. Narratives focused on the framings of multifunctional space that set out normative ways of conducting institutional work to create multifunctional infrastructural space. Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006) typology of institutional work (maintaining, creating, disrupting) was used to categorise the types of work being undertaken to deliver the WSNGCP. Figure 1 highlights the conceptual framework informing the analysis.

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram informing the analysis (Source: authors).

Four methods were used to generate data and inform the research aims. Firstly, participant observation was carried out over two years, during the project design and delivery stages. The researchers participated and documented communication in twelve Partner Working Group (PWG) meetings and formal communications regarding the project. The group consolidated key actors associated with one or more functional domains and was made up of representatives from the City of Canning, the Water Corporation, government agencies concerned with water and environmental management, consultants on water management and digital technology, and the researchers. The PWG was not intended to be a decision-making body, but rather “a discussion point” as described by one of the project leads. Researchers were primarily observers of the meetings, although occasionally would participate in discussions about issues, seeking clarity and confirming meaning. At least two researchers were present at each meeting. Immediately following the meeting, the researchers met to discuss, identify, and confirm the interpretation of important points raised in meetings, allowing verification and an initial reduction of data (De Walt and De Walt 2011). Secondly, semi-structured interviews were carried out with six project team members representing main stakeholder groups (the Water Corporation, local government authority (LGA) and the consultant landscape designers) immediately following the completion of the project. The interviews captured descriptions from stakeholders on the types of work they had conducted in the lead up to and during the project, with a focus on how they worked with stakeholders working within other domains. Thirdly, an analysis of thirty-four documents, including project plans, reports, meeting minutes and briefing reports was undertaken to map the project and identify key milestones. Finally, a focus group workshop with sixteen participants, including project stakeholders and consultants representing all aspects of the project, was held a year following the opening of the park. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a collective reflection on the planning, delivery, and implementation of the WSNGCP and identify learning opportunities for other similar projects.

The analysis was conducted using Nvivo. Fieldnotes, interviews and workshop transcripts, and documents were coded according to the framework in Figure 1, identifying the functional domains (green, blue and smart), institutions (rules, practices and narratives) and type of institutional work (creating, maintaining and disrupting). Codes and resultant combinations of domains, institutions and institutional work were arranged chronologically to indicate the evolution of institutions associated with the creation of the WSNGCP. The findings of the research are presented in the next two sections, describing the spatial and institutional context of the emergence of the WSNGCP and then the type of work that was conducted during the design and implementation of the project. The findings are then discussed to establish the main patterns of institutional work in the WSNGCP and draw out implications for the creation of other multifunctional infrastructural spaces.

5. The WSNGCP: Spatial, Historical and Institutional Contexts

The WSNGCP site is located near the Canning River or Djarlgarra, meaning “place of abundance” to the Whadjuk Noongar people, the traditional custodians of the land. Originally, the site was part of a network of natural wetlands and waterways that served as vital components of stormwater drainage for the low-lying terrain and held cultural and spiritual significance for the Aboriginal communities living in the area. Following British colonisation in the 1830s, the Canning area attracted a range of industries and housing due to the accessibility provided by the river. A series of drains and basins, including the Wharf Street Basin, were incrementally developed (see Figure 2) to drain wetlands by creating engineered stormwater drainage systems to support the development of housing. As noted by Hartwig et al. (2021) this approach to drainage in Australia cities has typically failed to acknowledge or protect the rights and interests of Aboriginal people over historical and ongoing cultural connections to waterways.

Figure 2. Aerial photographs of Wharf Street Basin 1953–2008 (Image: Josh Byrne and Associates 2018).

Throughout the twentieth century, large land holdings were gradually subdivided, and the Canning area was urbanised. A major shopping centre was established in 1957, servicing the now rapidly growing suburban areas in the southeast region of the Perth Metropolitan area. In the 2010s, the area surrounding the shopping centre, the Canning City Centre, became the focus of a major urban regeneration planning process in response to a projected increase in population and the declining urban quality. The Canning City Centre had evolved into a middle ring, greyfield suburban centre, dominated by roads and car parks with many undeveloped parcels of land. According to the masterplan, the Canning City Centre: “is not a vibrant, attractive, or user-friendly place at present. It is a car-dominated environment … the centre is far from being “mature” in terms of its role and function within the metropolitan context”. (City of Canning 2017, p. 9). Planning studies identified a shortfall in the amount of public space required to accommodate the growing population. In 2017, the Canning City Centre Activity Centre Plan was endorsed by the Council and the Western Australia Planning Commission.

The themes of green, blue and smart infrastructure were evident in the plan’s central narratives. The urban design masterplan, The Riverine City (City of Canning 2018b), sets out the intent to transform the stormwater drainage system into “a celebration of water and an enjoyable experience for residents and visitors of the city centre” by “daylighting” drainage infrastructure, creating “multiuse living streams” and adopting “water sensitive urban design”. This transformation would be supported by “going digital” and creating a city that is “smart, liveable and sustainable”. According to the plan, smart city technologies would help alleviate “pressure on infrastructure and urban services” through a range of applications, including by “providing access to chameleon spaces and facilities for work, play and community engagement”. The presence of multifunctionality within policy narrative in the masterplan provided an institutional framework upon which the WSNGCP could be built, when the opportunity arose Figure 3.

Figure 3. WSNGCP during construction (Image: Babb 2020).

The catalyst for the WSNGCP was the Australian Federal Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs scheme, a “$50 million competitive program to support projects that apply innovative technology-based solutions to urban challenges”. The scheme funding rules required projects to be collaborative, and assessed applications according to the degree of smart technology used in the project, meeting sustainability objectives, addressing issues of urban liveability and by the applicant demonstrating the capacity to deliver the project. The local government, the City of Canning and the asset owner, the Water Corporation, along with other stakeholders, formed a group to develop a proposal to convert the Wharf Street Basin into a “next-generation community park”. The basin was typical of similar stormwater drainage assets in the Perth metropolitan area, characterised by steeply graded excavations requiring fencing for safety and security. Several project stakeholders working in the BGI domain were already connected via other groups and initiatives focused on water-sensitive cities. For the Water Corporation, the project aligned with the goals of the recently established Drainage for Liveability programme, which sought to integrate stormwater drainage assets with the urban environment to improve a range of functions beyond managing stormwater, including biodiversity, micro-climate and amenity goals. A range of technologies was set out for inclusion in the proposal (City of Canning 2018a) including smart lighting, solar battery storage, CCTV, real-time sensing environment monitoring and an associated dashboard to visualise datasets, water quality sensors and digital noticeboards, and on-site lab space for students. Despite the focus on technology, the simple theme of “taking down the fence” was highlighted as the real innovation of the project. Ultimately, the park would “demonstrate how to deliver a complex drainage retrofit project which can be applied to the hundreds of basins across Perth” (City of Canning 2018a, p. 2) Figure 4.

Figure 4. WSNGCP a year after its opening (Image: Babb 2021).

6. Institutional Work in the Creation of the WSNGCP

The WSNGCP received funding in November 2018 and the PWG was quickly formalised in early 2019 to manage the delivery of the project. The project funding agreement set an ambitious timeframe that quickly catalysed action. One LGA project partner described the sudden awarding of the grant:

… if it had been undertaken as it was originally planned there would have been a couple more years of discussion internally and stakeholders probably around the best way to move forward … whereas here's the grant, we're doing it now.

Institutional work undertaken at this stage centred on establishing protocols to support the design and implementation phases of the WSNGCP. Tasks included negotiating site access agreements to allow construction, transferring management responsibility from the Water Corporation to the LGA and attending to the various adjacent landowner relations. Given this was the first project of its kind in the state, guidance from policies, protocols or organisational knowledge was limited in each of the project’s main functional domains. One LGA project partner noted: “ … daylighting of water infrastructure was included in the plan, but no one had thought about how to make that happen”. The Water Corporation explained that the WSNGCP was “something that Water Corp (sic) would not normally do off its own bat because it has too many public safety issues and it’s not considered within our key remit of providing flood protection”. Another LGA project partner involved in delivering the smart technological functions of the park commented on the experimental nature of their work as being “the old and not unfamiliar IT curse. You know, when someone comes up with a good idea and now you have to go and implement it”. Although the lack of a supportive institutional structure created challenges, stakeholders sought to innovate and improve existing practices. A process of trapping and returning the resident long-neck turtle population to the basin post-construction was described by an LGA stakeholder as a “point of difference” of the project because it went “above and beyond” standard practice in relocating fauna in infrastructure projects. However, other aspects of the project faltered due to the absence of supportive institutions. One LGA stakeholder, reflecting on the engagement with Aboriginal Traditional Owners, drew attention to the short lead time of the project and lack of existing institutional support to guide engagement: “So once we actually worked out who we should be talking to and what we should be talking to them about, we'd already started construction”.

The strong consensus that had existed between stakeholder in creating the vision of multifunctional space began to show signs of strain during the design and construction phases of the project. The existence of formal rule structures reflecting the traditional functions of the basin as storage for stormwater to protect against a 1 in 100-year flood event were at the centre of the tensions. Stakeholders engaged in work orientated towards maintaining or disrupting these existing rule structures. For landscape designers, the rules restricted potential landscape and ecological design interventions within the basin. Despite the original intent of “taking down the fence”, fencing was still required around the perimeter of the basin due to the steep gradient of the basin banks necessary to maximise stormwater storage capacity. According to one LGA partner, a smaller fence concealed by vegetation was originally planned for but not allowed due to capacity rules: “The intention was that the banks would be a lot shallower – a lot less steep and therefore safety issues weren't going to be as critical, so fencing was further down the slope and not as visible”. The rules regarding storage capacity also restricted the use of additional soil fill within the waterbody, limiting potential landscape design solutions to support habitat and facilitate hydrological flows and water filtration. Standards and thresholds regarding stormwater storage capacity and safety were challenged by landscape designers who sought to “push the boundaries” with design solutions, seeking to disrupt the existing rules that challenged innovation towards achieving desired design outcomes. Although negotiations saw some compromises made to design standards regarding fencing, requirements to retain stormwater storage capacity were maintained demonstrating the existence of enduring functional priorities associated with traditional infrastructural institutions within the WSNGCP.

Institutional work on delivering the park’s smart digital functionality operated with limited guidance from existing policy frameworks, organisational expertise, and technical knowledge. Practices to implement smart technologies were not constrained by existing protocols and instead were experimental and adaptive, described by one project team member as “having a bit of a go and just messing around with stuff”. The work towards delivering the WSNGCP’s smart functionality proceeded with some constraint by existing rule structures though. The CCTV cameras failed to deliver on their promised functionality due to conflict with local government policy that restricted the use of artificial intelligence in CCTV due to privacy concerns. The functions of other technologies such as solar energy capture and battery storage were downgraded due to unanticipated complexities of the site. The outcomes of the smart technology applications in the park were mixed according to discussion themes in the reflective workshop. Water quality sensors were incorrectly placed under the central bridge at the shallowest part of the basin, creating the need for additional ongoing maintenance due to the silting of the sensors. A key success of the project according to stakeholders were augmented reality (AR) stations that communicated scientific and cultural knowledge about the park via as mobile-phone app, despite the AR stations not being part of the original proposal.

Despite the global disruption caused by COVID-19, the park opened on schedule on 20 September 2020. A one-year post-project workshop highlighted reflections from stakeholders on the project’s success and challenges. Overall, the WSNGCP was considered a success, delivering a high-quality multifunctional urban park that was valued and used by the local community. However, stakeholders also noted that the work towards delivering the park had been challenging and compromises were made to elements of the original vision based on balancing the needs of different functional elements. Several stakeholders noted the inclusion of smart functionality complicated the delivery of the project overall and reduced funding for other elements in the park. The findings from the workshop also highlighted gaps in the existing institutions that were revealed by the project including the absence of organisational knowledge and policy to guide the implementation of digital technologies and the lack of protocols for engaging with Aboriginal Traditional Owners and Elders. Participants highlighted confusion over who was responsible for the ongoing technological monitoring and maintenance requirements of smart technology. The recognition of these gaps spurred additional institutional work. One stakeholder from the local government stated: “In terms of silver linings, I think that the difficulty that we had in engaging with the Traditional Owners is pushing the city to develop those processes now”. There was also work being done in the local government educating, training and upskilling staff in relation to smart technologies. Describing the project in hindsight, one of the project’s leads remarked: “It was too premature; we didn’t have a Smart Cities strategy; we didn’t have a digital transformation strategy. They’re now evolving”.

7. Discussion

The WSNGCP proposed a new approach for the planning and management of stormwater basins in Perth. By examining the type and characteristics of institutional work that was conducted to deliver the WSNGCP, this research offers insight into the interplay between collaborative actors and the existing and emergent institutional structures that they seek to shape in the creation of multifunctional infrastructure space. The case study shows that all three types of institutional work described by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) were evident in the institutional narratives, practices and rules that constituted the emergence of multifunctional space in the WSNGCP. However, reflecting findings from similar case studies of multifunctional urban places (Frantzeskaki and Bush 2021) the dynamics of work shifted throughout the evolution of the project. Early work in the project centred on creating narratives that supported the emergence of multifunctional space and the institutionalisation of these narratives into the formal planning framework for the Canning City Center. After securing funding, stakeholders worked towards establishing conducive institutional frameworks for project delivery by establishing new practices to facilitate and harmonise inter-organisational collaborative work. As the project advanced into the detailed design phase, stakeholders associated with the green and blue functions of the park found themselves divided between those adhering to established institutional norms concerning the basin's stormwater storage capacity and those that enhanced amenities, and ecological and landscape-scale functions. Work on the smart functionality of the park was largely uncontested during the delivery of the project but progressed mainly through experimental practices in the absence of established rules and protocols.

Institutions conceived of as rules, practices and narratives allow examination of a diverse, emergent and evolving institutional landscape that guides collective action in planning and managing urban infrastructure (Lowndes and Roberts 2013). Overarching framing narratives, such as the Riverine City narrative, established the institutional logic of multifunctionality in the planning framework of the Canning City Centre and laid the foundation for a nascent but supportive institutional framework that demonstrated “project readiness” in the Smart Cities and Suburbs application. The institutionalisation of multifunctionality in these overarching narratives align with entrepreneurial modes of urbanism where urban infrastructure and services increasingly compete for scarce capital, often with conditions based on demonstrative innovative practices or incorporating technologies (Lauermann 2018).

Rules prioritising stormwater abatement are commonly identified as barriers to the creation of multifunctional stormwater infrastructure (Meerow and Newell 2017). The case shows that these types of rules may not necessarily override the creation of multifunctional space, but rather shape the design or potential of the space to address different functions. Project stakeholders sometimes adopted ambiguous positions related to support for multifunctional space, with some working to create institutions that supported the broader goal of multifunctionality, whilst also working to maintain rules that reinforced incumbent institutional logics associated with their organisational responsibilities. In attempting to explain the shift from creating new institutional pathways for multifunctional space to reverting to established institutional rules, the representative from the water agency stated “ … everyone talks about silos but I think in the nature of technically-minded people … everyone’s nature is to revert to a sharp focus, just looking down at what they’ve got responsibility for”. This coexistence of technocratic institutional structures and new emergent institutional structures that support multifunctionality highlights the necessity of trade-offs among functional elements in institutional work in this area. It also underscores the need for a more nuanced comprehension of collaboration and partnerships in the development of multifunctional spaces to enable more informed decision-making and provide a more structured framework to guide collective action.

A central rationale for urban experimentation is the capacity for experiments to transform institutions by generating new collaborations, practices, and sharing of knowledge across existing institutional boundaries (Fuenfschilling et al. 2019). There was evidence of innovation in institutional work practices in the WSNGCP, such as the trapping and reintroduction of long neck turtles to the site, which suggested support for the creation of a multi-species multifunctional infrastructural space. However, as Raven et al. (2019) explain, urban experiments are significantly bound by the contexts that they are enacted within. Several aspects of the WSNGCP were implemented in an experimental manner faced by the absence of established rule structures, practices, or institutional knowledge to effectively guide action in various aspects of the project. Formal institutional gaps were highlighted by the absence of protocols for community engagement, site access agreements, the application of smart technology and the responsibilities for the ongoing management of smart technology. Evidence that there was ongoing institutional work to create protocols to support work to engage with Aboriginal Traditional Owners was encouraging, but also indicates the wider failure in the urban institutions in Australian cities to integrate First Nations knowledge and rights in the creation of urban infrastructure (Clements et al. 2022). The approach of experimental urbanism demonstrated by the WSNGCP may not be well equipped to address the more systemic gaps between the production of multifunctional urban spaces and the broader goal of recognising cultural knowledge, practices and rights over lands of First Nation peoples. Actors seeking the transformation of urban infrastructure institutions must therefore account for different degrees of institutional maturity across various functional elements that the project seeks to combine to support well-balanced multifunctional infrastructural spaces.

Planners, policymakers and advocates should also be aware of the conditions that produce opportunities for multifunctional infrastructural space when drawing lessons from individual urban experiments. The delivery of the WSNGCP through the Smart Cities and Suburbs scheme had a strong influence on dynamics in institutional work and this tempered the capacity of institutional actors to facilitate multifunctional space within this case. The strict project timeframes necessitated quick resolution of issues and several interviewees noted that the project would be very different without the impetus of the project deadlines to drive the project forward. Additionally, the mix of digital technology and BGI embedded within the project’s overarching objectives created the necessity for a specific set of trade-offs across three domains that would likely differ from other projects that were not bound by the specific requirements of the funding scheme. The scheme also provided substantial capital to support the delivery of various functions and this may also limit the potential for replicating such initiatives elsewhere. These factors created a unique set of conditions that may limit the transferability of general lessons to other similar sites, requiring institutional work that is more adaptive and innovative within a reduced range of resources and technical support.

8. Conclusion

The proposal for the creation of the WSNGCP suggested that, despite the incorporation of smart technologies, the real innovation of the park was “taking down the fence” and open a previously restricted stormwater basin and transform it into a multifunctional infrastructural space. As a metaphor for institutional work, removing fences also reflected the task of breaking down “silos” associated with the planning and management of urban infrastructural spaces associated with traditional, technocratic modes of infrastructural governance. However, as with the physical fence, which was not so much “removed” but rather reconfigured within the WSNGCP, structures associated with incumbent institutional regimes continued to play an active role in shaping the production of multifunctional space. The case study shows that institutional work in multifunctional infrastructure space is diverse, collaborative and often contested, despite a broad commitment to a shared vision for outcomes that support multifunctionality. Stakeholders can inhabit ambiguous roles, being involved in creating and nurturing multifunctionality whilst supporting core rules associated with “siloed” functional domains. To promote the creation of multifunctional spaces like the WSNGCP, urban planners and policymakers can contribute by cultivating supportive institutional environments, and regulatory frameworks, and implementing practices that encourage open discussion of trade-offs across different functional domains. However, there are limits to the transferability of lessons learned through the delivery of the park. Institutional actors seeking to further support the transformation of restricted infrastructural spaces into multifunctional places should account for the specific conditions that underpin urban experimentation when applying these lessons to other cases.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by both the City of Canning and the Australian Government’s Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. Thanks to research assistants Dr Isaac Middle, Dr Shohreh Nematollahi and Dr Rohit Sharm for their work on the research project. We would like to thank the project and design teams associated with the Wharf Street Next Generation Community Park who generously offered their time and insights for this research.

Disclosure Statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Australian Government: [grant number Smart Cities and Suburbs Round 2]; City of Canning: [grant number Smart Cities and Suburbs Round 2].