3.4 Case study: Kera

The development of Kera involves implementing the sustainability objectives of the City of Espoo, and the project area has served as a development and testing area for the co-creation model. The results of the workshop used to explore the experiences of the Kera project and test the co-creation model are reported below. The challenges and solutions identified can be roughly divided into the following areas:

Kera (Open street map)

Regulation and rules
Cooperation between different stakeholders
Commitment and decisions
Data production and transfer
Resources and organisation
Operating policies and the process
Tools
It should be noted that many of the challenges identified relate to urban development in general, not just to promoting sustainable development and smart approaches.

KERA

• The Kera area will change from an old industrial and logistics area into a residential and working area for 14,000 inhabitants

• The area is a pioneer in sustainable urban development, where solutions supporting a carbon-neutral circular economy are tested and developed

• Urban temporary uses are being tested in the area

• Kera’s area development commitment as part of the land use agreements commits the actors involved in the implementation to sustainable solutions.

The aim is to:

  • the most sustainable city district based on solutions implemented together with partners
  • expanding developer ecosystems of sustainable urban solutions
  • strengthening the sense of community with new methods of operation and experiments
  • land use planning and functional development in parallel.

Successes and challenges of co-creation in Kera

In Kera’s regional development, commitment to co-creation was found to be equally important to commitment to the promotion of the objectives set. In Kera, the area south of the railroad track has already made good use of co-creation methods, but for development on the northern side, participation could take place even earlier. By identifying the question to be addressed, the necessary stakeholders for co-creation can be found.

In Kera, the differences in the time perspectives of the actors in the region pose challenges in involving all stakeholders from the initial phase to deployment and maintenance. In an energy network, for example, long-term commitment is natural, whereas in residential construction, the horizon is much shorter and responsibilities are spread over time between operators.

In Kera, a regional solution has been created for energy. Energy should be understood in a much broader sense (as part of mobility, housing, etc.) and energy circularity should be sought. A flexible energy model is needed to make the best use of the flexibilities of different energy sources. The similarity between energy and mobility lies in the fact that they share a common infrastructure. Co-creation should promote common interest and shared use.

The Kera Commitment (PDF), which is shared by all actors in the region, is an excellent tool, but the criteria for project-specific development should be sufficiently concrete – the workshop discussed whether precise criteria can always be defined for each project separately.

The community spirit created early on was seen as a success in Kera – many different communities are needed, including for temporary uses. For example, the community of service providers is important – the city provides only a small proportion of services.

Agreements and commitments to implement the objectives of a sustainable and smart area

Commitments, and especially agreements, must contain sufficiently concrete criteria, even down to project-level governance, but at the same time allow for sufficient flexibility. The original parties to the Kera Commitment are the landowners and the city. When new actors enter the chain, they do not necessarily see it in the same way. In connection with updates, a phenomenon has been observed whereby agreements are interpreted in one’s own favour.

Based on the experiences gained from the Kera project, as regional development becomes more differentiated at project level, commitments and agreements should guide actors towards a more active dialogue across project boundaries. Intelligence and sustainability are not the only qualitative criteria to be promoted today; the objectives are very multi-dimensional. Not all objectives can be achieved in every project, so prioritisation is also important.

Achieving the goals set requires both sanctioned agreements and rules and joint commitments. However, transparency and predictability are important. The problem is the obsolescence of requirements (e.g. numeric criteria) as technologies, research knowledge and society evolve rapidly.

In Kera, landowners had such different objectives that the creation of a common economic model, company or alliance was not successful. In evaluating the experience, it was noted that the obstacles to successful agreement and commitment should be made visible (so-called negative brainstorming).

How can the city, landowners or private actors be involved in the objectives?

While the Kera community is very committed to promoting the objectives, it is recognised that, in addition to the general objectives, there is a need to describe clear measures and technological solutions that can be promoted in a cost-effective way. In Kera, a wide range of options have been explored and a region-specific carbon neutrality map has also been produced, taking into account regional opportunities and constraints.

The Kera project initially involved different actors with very different interests, leading to the process of operational development and later the Kera Commitment. The question is how to engage all the new players in Kera who are not covered by the original agreements? Communication is more important in long chains of actors, where responsibilities are also divided into smaller fragments. Dialogue between the different projects is particularly important. In addition to this, groundwork should be done carefully, i.e. the actors should maintain a common understanding of the objectives.

The city can do a lot to contribute: operating models, structures to support the objectives, facilitation, fundraising, etc. As a body with a long-term interest, the city can help the various actors by rewarding them for their contribution to the objectives, for example, through land use fees, land transfer and other instruments. The city has a natural role to play as a ‘glue’ between projects, but whether the city has sufficient resources to do so remains debatable. The Kera project shows that co-creation within projects is commonplace, but projects should engage in more discussion with each other.

In Kera, and in other regions, it is essential that individual projects can be motivated and guided towards common goals at the same time. The actors cannot be forced, but in the name of co-creation, processes and ways to motivate different actors to work together towards common goals need to be sought. Another alternative in co-creation is, of course, strongly committed joint regional or property-specific development corporations.

Otherwise, there is a risk that development projects in sub-regions will become too disparate and objectives will not be met. One example is regional energy networks and the freedom for operators to choose their own technology solutions. How can we ensure overall sustainability? How can we describe and realise the (economic) added value of a collaborative actor that implements sustainable solutions? Another example is shared centralised parking facilities, which are to be developed into mobility service hubs under the concept of shared mobility. How can we engage the actors in the region in the implementation, operation and maintenance throughout the lifecycle?

Consortia projects are often mega-projects, and there is a need for more SME consortia and the mainstreaming of consortia activities. The city could also play a sparring role in getting property owners to be more eager to take on the role of developer – i.e. how can we find good deals and develop the city?

Co-creation of Kera in the future

Steps for the further development of Kera

The development of Kera will continue and will gradually move from planning to construction and deployment. Construction of the new street infrastructure in the area is scheduled to start in early 2023, with construction of the first blocks at the end of the same year. Kera’s sustainability commitment sets practical milestones for the development of the region now and in the future. An evaluation team has been set up to monitor the commitment and support the translation of its objectives into practice. The initial development commitment for Kera city centre will be updated when the other two Kera areas (Karapelto and Karamalminrinne) are completed.

As part of the Kera Commitment, the city will continue to support the development of Kera. Kera will serve as a continuous international example for the development of sustainable and smart urban areas, and lessons learned from the Kera project will be expanded to other regions. In particular, strategic marketing and communication in putting together the story of Kera and facilitating a common set of ground rules for the actors will be highlighted as themes. Kera’s network of partners will grow as construction begins. The aim is to involve new actors interested in implementing sustainable solutions. Learning how to actively share knowledge both within and outside Kera will become even more important as the network of actors becomes more diverse.

Some of the concrete development targets for the near future in Kera include the energy ecosystem of the area and its block and property-specific solutions in combination with spatial solutions, the development of the existing Kera station area as part of the sustainable mobility of the area, mobility fluidity and the provision of mobility services during the construction of the area, the use of centralised parking facilities in the area as a new kind of shared mobility service facility, new concepts for circular economy centres, and the use of construction materials and other circular economy solutions. All of these can be addressed by applying the co-creation model developed in the search for solutions. The co-creation process described above can also be used to create sustainable solutions for projects on individual plots and to bring together interested actors in project planning and implementation consortia.

In recent years, Kera has been strongly characterised by the temporary use of existing spaces and the new activities and urban culture that emerge from this. Bringing together the lessons learned from Keran Hallit and Kutojantie facilities and their further development are essential elements in the further development of Kera. The key is to find solutions to continue to use empty spaces as part of the development of Kera and other similar areas, supporting the development of the functionality of the area already in the planning and construction phases. Temporary use requires new models and roles (e.g. ‘space operator’) and a broad adoption of circular economy thinking. Temporary use and the development of urban services is an interesting area where the co-creation model offers a new approach.

Co-creation in the regions also requires an overall plan, as some issues, such as the formation of energy communities and circular economy procedures, are strategic and should be clear when launching projects on a site-by-site basis.