OECD - Adaptive communal space in cities

2025 D4SME Survey OECD SME and Entrepreneurship PapersOECD Regional Development Papers Adaptive communal space in cities 2025 D4SME Survey OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Papers OECD Regional Development Papers Adaptive communal space in citiesOECD Regional Development Papers

Adaptive communal space in cities

This paper examines the role of adaptive communal space (ACS) in supporting resilient, adaptable and community-oriented urban development. ACS refers to (semi-) public spaces collectively shaped, managed and used by local communities to respond to evolving local needs. Examples of ACS include community gardens, cultural and creative hubs, or spaces for circular economy initiatives. Drawing on interviews, survey responses and comparative literature, the paper argues that ACS represents a shift from exclusively top-down service delivery towards shared stewardship and local problem-solving. It identifies six areas through which ACS can contribute to better urban outcomes: social connectivity, environmental management and resource efficiency, economic opportunities, cultural activity, temporal adaptability and institutional flexibility. The paper highlights that the effectiveness and continuity of ACS depend less on spatial form than on enabling institutional conditions, including legal certainty, effective governance, financial capacity and policy co-ordination. It concludes with ways forward for policymakers to strengthen local governance capacity, safeguard access to space, support experimentation and encourage adaptive collaboration across sectors and levels of government.

PUBE2 

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

ABOUT THE OECD The OECD is a multi-disciplinary inter-governmental organisation with member c ountries which engages in its work an increasing number of nonmembers from all regions of the world. The Organisation’s core mission today is to help governments work together towards a stronger, cleaner, fa irer global economy. Through its network of specialised committees and working groups, the OECD prov ides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies. More information available: www.oecd.org.

Through its network of specialised committees and working groups, the OECD prov ides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice, and co-ordinate domestic and international policies. More information available: www.oecd.org. ABOUT OECD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PAPERS Papers from the Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities of the OECD c over a full range of topics including regional statistics and analysis, urban governance and economics, rural governance and economics, and multi-level governance. Depending on the programme of work, the papers can cover specific topics such as regional innovation and networks, sustainable developme nt, the determinants of regional growth or fiscal consolidation at the subnational level. OECD Regional Development Papers are published on http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy. This work is issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General o f the OECD, and does not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD Member countries. This document, as well as any statistical data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

Cover image: © Pressmaster/ iStock / Getty Images Plus

© OECD 2026

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribution – you must cite the work. Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of a ny discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid. Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The

discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid. Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries. Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement. You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work. Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled b y arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arb itration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one. 3

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Acknowledgements This paper was prepared by the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE), led by Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Director, as part of the Programme of Work of the OECD Regional Development Policy Committee (RDPC). The paper benefited from the in-kind contribution of the City of Amsterdam (The Nether lands), through a staff member being temporarily detached from the municipality to the OECD. The project was conducted by Joekenel van der Pijl (Process Manager Free Space, Urban Planning Depa rtment, Municipality of Amsterdam) under the supervision of Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the Cities, Urban Policies and Sustainable Development Division in the CFE. It benefited from comments and insights from Caroli ne Nevejan (Chief Science Officer, City of Amsterdam) and Enno Ebels (Team Leader, City Policy, Urba n Planning department, City of Amsterdam). Amal Chevreau, Emily Hunter, Soo-Jin Kim, Karen Magui re, and

Science Officer, City of Amsterdam) and Enno Ebels (Team Leader, City Policy, Urba n Planning department, City of Amsterdam). Amal Chevreau, Emily Hunter, Soo-Jin Kim, Karen Magui re, and Talia Melic in the CFE, as well as Nina Lenglinger in GOV, provided inputs and comments. Bridgette Joyce and Alix Philouze (CFE) for prepared the paper for publication. The paper draws on interviews of stakeholders and case studies on cities includ ing Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Istanbul, Ljubljana, Paris and Yokohama. Additionally, this paper incorporates insights from an expert workshop on “Rethinking space in cities: Unlocking the potential of adaptive communal space (ACS) to connect people, places and f irms” hosted by the OECD on 20 February 2025. Special thanks go to all respondents who participated in the interviews, workshop and/or survey. The paper was submitted to the Working Party on Urban Policy for comments on 25 July 2025.4 

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Table of contents

Acknowledgements 3 Executive summary 5 1 Defining adaptive communal space 6 Introduction 7 Objective, methodology and structure of the paper 7 Foundations of ACS 8 Five types of ACS 10 Institutional logic and mediating function 12 Conclusion 13 2 ACS in practice: Case studies 14 Introduction 15 Case studies 15 3 Enabling, evaluating and supporting ACS 18 Introduction 19 Enabling ACS 19 Measuring and evaluating ACS impact 21

Supporting ACS: Checklist for Public Action 23

Conclusion: Enabling ACS as civic infrastructure, from recognition to institutionalisation 26

References 28

FIGURES Figure 3.1. Public Action Checklist to enable ACS 24

TABLES Table 1.1. List of participating cities 7

Conclusion: Enabling ACS as civic infrastructure, from recognition to institutionalisation 26

References 28

FIGURES Figure 3.1. Public Action Checklist to enable ACS 24

TABLES Table 1.1. List of participating cities 7 Table 1.2. Key components of value creation through a theory of change 9 Table 1.3. Five models of ACS 11 Table 1.4. Contributions of ACS models to public value domains 13 Table 1.5. ACS models and their capacity to generate public value 13 Table 3.1. Evaluation framework for ACS impact 23 Table 3.2. Linking governance functions to policy levels 26 5

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Executive summary

Cities today face overlapping pressures – from natural hazards and economic precarity to social fragmentation and declining trust in institutions. These challenges expose the limits of conventional urban systems and demand new approaches to how urban space is governed, used and shared. The concept of adaptive communal space (ACS) offers a practical and policy-relevant lens for addressing local priorities while fostering civic initiative and spatial adaptability. It also provides an opportunity for local innovation that can contribute to new forms of economic development and urban regeneration. ACS refers to (semi-) public spaces managed and shaped by local commun ities to meet their evolving needs. Examples include community gardens, shared cultural and creative hubs, and circular repair sites. Rather than prescribing a new spatial typology, ACS highlights a shift in institutional logic – from top-down planning to shared creation of public value. By enabling people to particip ate not only as users, but as co-creators and stewards of their local environment, ACS contributes both to the everyday functioning and long-term resilience of cities. ACS can activate underused assets, reduce costs and lower barriers to local entrepreneurship by enabling shared use of space, infrastructure and governance capacity. Depending on local conditions and priorities, ACS can contribute to six main areas of public value: • Social cohesion – strengthening relationships, shared use and trust across communities

long-term resilience of cities. ACS can activate underused assets, reduce costs and lower barriers to local entrepreneurship by enabling shared use of space, infrastructure and governance capacity. Depending on local conditions and priorities, ACS can contribute to six main areas of public value: • Social cohesion – strengthening relationships, shared use and trust across communities • Environmental stewardship and resource efficiency – supporting local environmental management and the efficient use of shared spaces and resources • Economic opportunities – enabling social enterprise, skill-building and the reuse of resources • Cultural expression – nurturing local identity, artistic production and heritage • Temporal adaptability – responding flexibly through seasonal programming and temporary use • Institutional autonomy – operating within hybrid governance models combining local initiative with enabling institutional frameworks By focusing on these domains, ACS supports adaptive urban development while ena bling economic, social, environmental and institutional transformation. Its contribution to publ ic value depends less on physical form than on the institutional conditions that support its emergence, conti nuity and evolution – including legal certainty, good governance, financial capacity and policy integration. Recognising and enabling ACS as civic infrastructure can help governments foster more participatory urban futures . Based on findings from interviews, survey responses and comparative literature review, this paper highlights actionable directions for policymakers seeking to use ACS in their communities: • Support while preserving civic autonomy • Invest in governance capacity • Safeguard civic access to space and procedures • Promote institutional collaboration across sectors and scales • Reframe evaluation practices through participatory approaches • Enable experimentation through adaptive and iterative policy frameworks6 

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

This chapter introduces adaptive communal space (ACS) as a policy-relevant lens to understand how communities shape urban space through shared use and collective governance. It defines ACS, grounds it in theoretical traditions and introduces a theory of change to clarify how community-led practices create public value.

1 Defining adaptive communal space 7

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Introduction

theoretical traditions and introduces a theory of change to clarify how community-led practices create public value.

1 Defining adaptive communal space 7

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Introduction Cities serve as engines of economic, social , cultural and environmental innovation. They attract investment, talent and creativity. Yet they are under growing pressure from megatrends suc h as urbanisation, natural hazards and demographic shifts. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed s patial inequalities and the fragility of local care systems, while underscoring the importance of accessible public space in building civic trust and social resilience. In light of these d evelopments, it is timely to revisit ho w urban space is governed and experienced. This paper proposes the concept of adaptive communal space (ACS) as a practical, policy-relevant framework to address this challenge. ACS is defined as (semi-) public space managed and shaped by local communities to meet their evolving needs . Examples include community-led greening initiatives, circular repair hubs and shared cultural programming – each embedding civic engagement in concrete, localised practice. It allows communit ies to play a direct role in shaping cities, generating value across economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. ACS provides infrastructure through which civic participation, creativity and trust can take root. Community spaces such as libraries, parks and community centres play a crucial role i n resilience and crisis management (Klinenberg, 2018 [1]) and urban commons foster intergenerational connections (OECD, 2025[2]). At the same time, only 30% of people feel they can influence public decisions, illustrating the need to rethink the relationship between space and governance (OECD, 2024 [3]). Additionally, the OECD highlights the potential for cities to use crises as opportunities for urban renewal and resilience (OECD, 2024[4]). Objective, methodology and structure of the paper This paper aims to enhance the understanding of adaptive communal space (ACS) and provide policymakers with actionable insights to support its development across diverse urban contexts. It pursues three core objectives:

2024[4]). Objective, methodology and structure of the paper This paper aims to enhance the understanding of adaptive communal space (ACS) and provide policymakers with actionable insights to support its development across diverse urban contexts. It pursues three core objectives: • To articulate the value proposition of ACS as a lever for urban development. • To propose a working definition and conceptual framework for ACS, grounded in interdisc iplinary theory and comparative case analysis. • To formulate concrete policy recommendations and implementation tools for national a nd local authorities, building on real-world experiences and institutional practice. The research combines conceptual analysis with a literature review and place-based evidence to provide a comprehensive understanding of ACS. A total of 21 qualitative interviews and surveys were carried out with urban professionals, policymakers, community organisers and academics across sev en cities: Amsterdam, Berlin, Brussels, Istanbul, Ljubljana, Paris and Yokohama, as detailed in Table 1.1. The cities were selected to reflect diverse governance models, legal frameworks and cultural-politica l contexts in which ACS operates. Four cities – Amsterdam, Berlin, Ljubljana and Yokohama – were analysed in greater depth through case studies. Table 1.1. List of participating cities City Interview Survey Workshop Amsterdam X X X Berlin X X X Brussels X X Istanbul X Ljubljana X Paris X Yokohama X X X8 

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

In addition to fieldwork, the research incorporates insights from an expert workshop titled “Rethinking space in cities: Unlocking the potential of adaptive communal space (ACS) to connect people, places and firms”, which was hosted by the OECD in February 2025. The workshop helped test pre liminary insights, strengthen the typology and explore the national relevance of the proposed policy tools. The paper is structured as follows: • Chapter 1 defines the concept of adaptive communal space (ACS), grounds it in interdi sciplinary

strengthen the typology and explore the national relevance of the proposed policy tools. The paper is structured as follows: • Chapter 1 defines the concept of adaptive communal space (ACS), grounds it in interdi sciplinary theory and introduces both a theory of change and a typology of five governance models . It highlights the distinct institutional logic of community-led and hybrid forms and fram es ACS as a civic infrastructure capable of generating public value across economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions. • Chapter 2 explores how ACS emerges and evolves in practice through four case studies: Amsterdam, Berlin, Ljubljana and Yokohama. These cases highlight how enabling conditions such as legal recognition, financial continuity and co-governance arrangements interact to shape diverse ACS approaches. The chapter also tests the conceptual framework introduced in Cha pter 1, drawing out strategic lessons on governance, legal enablers and the balance between auto nomy and recognition. • Chapter 3 identifies the institutional requirements for supporting ACS at scale across four domains of public action: legal frameworks, governance, finance and policy integration. It proposes a multidimensional evaluation framework based on six public value domai ns and offers concrete policy tools – including a Checklist for Public Action – to embed ACS into long-term urban strategies. Foundations of ACS Theory of change To understand how adaptive communal space (ACS) can contribute structurally to mor e, participatory cities, it is essential to clarify the mechanisms through which local initiatives ge nerate public value. While ACS often begins as a situated, small-scale practice, its societal impact exten ds beyond the immediate use of space. It can catalyse new forms of co-operation, stewardship and care, especia lly when such approaches are embedded in enabling environments. ACS can activate underused assets, reduce costs and lower barriers to local entrepreneurship by enabling shared use of space, infrastructure a nd governance capacity. The theory of change presented below serves to articulate this process. It outlines ho w different types of input – such as community leadership, access to underused space and legal flexibility – can trigger a chain

and lower barriers to local entrepreneurship by enabling shared use of space, infrastructure a nd governance capacity. The theory of change presented below serves to articulate this process. It outlines ho w different types of input – such as community leadership, access to underused space and legal flexibility – can trigger a chain of activities that lead to broader outcomes. By making these dynamics explicit, the framework supports both policymakers and community actors in identifying where intervention is most needed to unlock the full potential of ACS. Table 1.2 summarises the key components of this logic and illustrates how A CS evolves over time – from informal experimentation to embedded infrastructure – and underlines the importance of aligning short-term actions with long-term transformation. 9

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Table 1.2. Key components of value creation through a theory of change Input Activities Output Outcome Impact Availability of underutilised or transformable urban space Community-driven spatial design and use Establishment of a functioning ACS with basic infrastructure (e.g.1 kitchen, 1 greenhouse, 1 incubator) Stronger collaboration between local actors, emergence of new governance practices More adaptive urban development Local initiative and community leadership Governance experiments (e.g. co-operatives) Creation of co-governance models or civic associations Increased local ownership, leadership and empowerment Greater social cohesion and civic trust Openness and legal flexibility of the municipality Mixed-use programmes (e.g. food, care, education, arts) Programming of local stakeholders and networks Emergence of communitybased services and new social, economic or environmental practices Resilient urban systems with decentralised support capacity Seed capital for economic, social, cultural and/or environmental experiments Knowledge sharing and exchange

networks Emergence of communitybased services and new social, economic or environmental practices Resilient urban systems with decentralised support capacity Seed capital for economic, social, cultural and/or environmental experiments Knowledge sharing and exchange Number of workshops, cultural programmes or community activities Improved economic, environmental, cultural and/or social practices at community level Improved economic opportunity, well-being and life satisfaction in neighbourhoods Policy support for economic, social, cultural and/or environmental innovation Involvement with municipal institutions and frameworks ACS integrated in neighborhood plans Improved institutional innovations, strengthened cross-sector collaboration and policy coherence Structural recognition of ACS as a lever for sustainable urban transformation Source: Author’s elaboration derived from expert interviews, user surveys and a comparative literature review. The evolution of ACS also brings with it a structural tension: as community-led spaces gain recognition and institutional support, they may risk losing the very autonomy and adaptive capacity that enabled them to flourish. This paradox – where success can invite co-option or displacement – underscores the importance of designing enabling frameworks that protect not just the existence of ACS, but also their civic character. Strategic alignment with broader policy agendas ACS contributes to key dimensions of the OECD Well-being Framework, notably social connec tions, civic engagement and environmental quality (OECD, 2020 [5]). In addition, the social and solidarity economy (SSE) offers a valuable institutional reference point, emphasising community benefi t, democratic governance and hybrid economic models (OECD, 2023 [6]; European Commission, 2021 [7]). A social enterprise is an entity, which trades goods and services, that fulfils a soci etal objective and whose main purpose is not the maximisation of profit for the owners but its reinvestment for the con tinued attainment

enterprise is an entity, which trades goods and services, that fulfils a soci etal objective and whose main purpose is not the maximisation of profit for the owners but its reinvestment for the con tinued attainment of its societal goals (OECD, 2022[8]). This definition resonates with many ACS initiatives, particularly those that operate at the intersection of economic resilience and community empowerment. ACS supports widely recognised urban policy objectives, including long-term liveability, local resilience and cross-sector collaboration, as reflected in a range of national and city-l evel policy frameworks. However, the practical realisation of ACS varies considerably in terms of form, ini tiating actors and levels of community engagement. To clarify this diversity, the following chapter presents a typology of five ACS models. This typology offers a systematic structure for evaluating how different ACS variants translate strategic objectives – such as trust-building, co-governance and spatial transformation – into context-specific urban practice. It also provides the basis for understanding the alignment between conceptual goals and real-world dynamics, as further explored in the empirical case studies in Chapter 2.10 

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Theoretical foundations of ACS The concept of ACS, as developed in this paper, draws on the theoretical perspectives of Henri Lefebvre and Elinor Ostrom to frame its spatial and institutional dynamics. Lefebvre’s critique of top -down planning highlights the need for spaces shaped through social relations, aligning closely with ACS’s adaptability and community involvement. Lefeb vre argued that space is not a passive backdrop but is actively produced – lived, contested and negotiated – through everyday practices (Lefebvre, 1996[9]). His rhythm analysis framework conceptualises cities as dynamic interactions between human activities and spatial structures, reinforcing the importance of adaptable, com munity-centred spaces (Adhitya, 2017 [10]). Lefebvre’s theory affirms the value of community-centred, flexible spaces that evolve through collective interaction and changing needs. Ostrom’s work on common -pool resources underscores the importance of community governance, a key

spaces (Adhitya, 2017 [10]). Lefebvre’s theory affirms the value of community-centred, flexible spaces that evolve through collective interaction and changing needs. Ostrom’s work on common -pool resources underscores the importance of community governance, a key feature of ACS. Ostrom demonstrated that communities can manage shared resources effectively without relying solely on state or market mechanisms. Her research showed that under the ri ght conditions, communities can design governance rules, resolve conflicts and sustain shared assets over time (Ostrom, 1990[11]). These insights are foundational to ACS, particularly in recognising community stewardship as both feasible and adaptive compared to traditional top-down governance models. Together, Lefebvre and Ostrom provide a compelling theoretical basis for ACS as a mod el for community-driven governance. ACS extends their theories by focusing on the dynamic and adaptive nature of communal spaces, offering an innovative model for urban space that empowers communities to manage and redefine their environment in response to evolving urban challenges. Five types of ACS To fully understand how adaptive communal space (ACS) functions, it is cr itical to contextualise each space within its unique urban setting. As Foucault argues, space is not neutral; it is produced through the interplay of power, social relations and political structures (Foucault, 1977[12]). By contextualising ACS, we can better understand how different governance models emerge based on local needs and societal values, as well as the tensions that might arise when these spaces interact with broader urban policies. Building on the earlier definition, ACS assumes a minimum threshold of community agen cy: the ability to organise, co-govern and adapt the space over time. From this assumption, five governance mode ls are distinguished (Table 1.3), each reflecting a specific configuration of ci vic initiative and institutional involvement. This typology of ACS is designed to clarify the different ways in which ACS can take shape across urban contexts, linking each model to broader societal outcomes . While ACS shares key characteristics with

distinguished (Table 1.3), each reflecting a specific configuration of ci vic initiative and institutional involvement. This typology of ACS is designed to clarify the different ways in which ACS can take shape across urban contexts, linking each model to broader societal outcomes . While ACS shares key characteristics with established theories of urban space (Lefebvre, 1992[13]) and commons governance (Ostrom, 1990[11]), the five-model typology developed here offers a novel framework for policy and practice. It reflects the central dimensions of community agency and institutional engagement, distinguishing betwee n diverse governance forms, from state-led to community-led. All typologies, tables and figures presented in this section have been subject to expert feedback, including interviews, surveys and discussions held during an OECD workshop. These insights have been integral to both the conceptual framing and the empirical differentiation of the five ACS models. 11

ADAPTIVE COMMUNAL SPACE IN CITIES © OECD 2026

Table 1.3. Five models of ACS ACS model Governance Funding Benefits Limitations Example

1. State-led public spaces Municipal government Public funding Accessibility for all citizens, formal public services Bureaucratic rigidity, limited direct community involvement Park, library, museum, community centre

2. Privately managed public spaces (PMPs) Corporate or private ownership Commercially funded through real estate returns and rental income High-quality infrastructure, security and maintenance Limited public access, prioritisation of profit over social goals

Granary Square (London)

3. Profit-driven mixed-use developments Private developers, real estate firms Private capital, real estate investments, public-private partnerships

(PPP) Urban efficiency, economic diversification, increased amenities Prioritisation of profit over social goals

developments Private developers, real estate firms Private capital, real estate investments, public-private partnerships (PPP) Urban efficiency, economic diversification, increased amenities Prioritisation of profit over social goals High Line (New York), Mercato Metropolitano (Milan)

4. Social & cultural hubs (semi/non-profit) Non-profits, social entreprises, co-operatives Cultural & social grant