Speaker
Description
Port-city territories are physically and conceptually crucial frontiers in a wide range of transition processes, whether relating to energy, digitalisation, the circular economy, mobility, or the development of urban services in the areas where cities and ports meet (Hein, 2011). In particular, transition discourses in planning and policies define these contexts as strategic locations for the development of green infrastructures and the integration of alternative energy sources. Furthermore, they highlight how, in the sites at the interface between the city and the port where these transitions take place, it is possible to achieve greater integration between production and logistics requirements, and quality of life in the neighbouring residential areas, through various forms of public engagement throughout decision-making processes.
Within these hydrosocial territories (Boelens et al., 2016), port infrastructures and waterways supporting transition-related programs, as well as industrial areas linked with ports that are undergoing green conversion or ecological-oriented transition, are often embedded in broader water management systems.
Nonetheless, transition processes involve multi-level coordination between public authorities and private companies that are frequently characterised by complex negotiations, conflicting interests, and socio-environmental challenges. This means that any transition strategy can possibly represent a critical juncture for the governance of resources that may be subject to dispute, being related to contested water uses and diverging underlying values.
In this regard, perspectives on transition processes of the actors involved are shaped by different frames (Faludi, 1996). While the uncertainty that accompanies transition processes is claimed as something that is being "taken the lead of" within the context of urban and regional development by institutional actors, this can rise questions of misleading narratives of transitions (van der Laar, 2023) underlyingly imply pairing economic growth scenarios to “greening” operations. On the other hand, counteracting narratives raised by grassroot movements aim to steer collective imagination towards alternative engineering and technological interventions to solve increasingly complex socio-ecological challenges (Savoldi & Soriani, 2026).
These different perspectives, which address the challenges posed by uncertainty in transition scenarios by bringing external factors such as socio-ecological and socio-technical conditions into play. Also, they accordingly shape concepts such as sustainability, which are conveyed into planning processes through action arenas where stakeholders interact.
Hence, two questions are raised: how do planning processes relating to the transition address uncertainty – including with regard to the management of resources such as water and the transitional areas between water and land, and between the port and the city? How do institutional frameworks, governance structures and decision-making procedures relating to transitions result in pathways of institutional capacity implementation or adaptive governance, or reproduce pathway-dependent models that reflect existing power relations?
Starting from these guiding questions, this contribution builds on the author’s doctoral research, which adopts Common Pool Resource (CPR) as a conceptual framework in order to reflect on how dilemmas about shared resource uses and management are intertwined to transition pathways.
The eight design principles for sustainable management of CPRs identified by Elinor Ostrom (1990) provide useful lenses for exploring actors' positions about priorities to be set, coordination across actors and scales, and negotiations of trade-offs and conflicts in planning and policy settings.
In order to investigate how these positions are expressed into collective decision-making systems, the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework designed by Ostrom (2011) is introduced, in the “extended” or “politicized” interpretation by Clement (2010). This interpretation introduces two exogenous variables of economic-political contexts and discourses which highlight the role of power dynamics, historical processes and broader political and economic forces. In this way, the hidden power imbalances and long-term influences over actors’ decisions are explicitly addressed. Moreover, the author further builds on the framework by operationalising the evaluation criteria, defining four indicators: 1) participation to the process, evaluating the ‘openness’ of the arena – the ability of actors/participants to enter a position and mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion; 2) information throughout the process, identifying information asymmetries and discourse adopted – information availability to the various position holders, types of information shared, information channels; 3) agency within the process, defining power dynamics – the ability of participants in specific positions to choose specific actions and actual power to act; 4) scope of the process, evaluating deliberate design of the arenas, learning processes and unexpected outcomes – the range of allowed outcomes shaped by interactions in the arena, and the potential for change.
This framework is applied through a mixed methods approach, that integrates different disciplinary perspectives and an “embedded” research posture, using document analysis, cartography, discourse analysis and ethnographic techniques. In particular, the role of historical processes in influencing interaction arenas is further enriched by the incorporation of critical junctures and path dependencies concepts derived from institutionalism (HI). The socio-spatial analysis uses historical cartography, current projects and transition-related programs for informing the other external variables.
The selected units of analysis are port-related authorities and civil society organisations, which are investigated in their interaction either in institutional and non-institutional arenas.
The investigation is based on a qualitative research method, using the case studies coming from the author’s doctoral work, which are Venice, Amsterdam and Antwerp. These three port city territories present different contextual pathways of dealing with transition processes engaging statutory bodies and less institutionalised actors. Here, the launch of projects implementing institutional policies for the transition brings to light dilemmas linked to uncertainty in the management of common resources.
In Venice, the large cruise ships ban from passing through San Marco Basin and the Giudecca Canal enforced in 2021 led the Port Authority to promote a spread moorings model across the island (Marittima) and the mainland (Marghera) within the Venice Lagoon. Initiatives such as the Waterfront project and the Cruise Commissioner's works of canals excavation and new passenger terminals, presented as part of an institutional strategy promoting a paradigm shift. Nevertheless, they are criticised by local committees as a series of transformations that merely replicate the very same patterns resulting from past decisions of exploitation of the lagoon’s ecosystem and neighbourhood public spaces for touristic interests.
In Amsterdam, the expanding needs of residential areas lead to the HavenStad project that pushes the operational port areas westwards. The expansion of the port towards the Houtrakpolder,
as well as encroaching on green spaces and public areas, would conflict with the area’s designated use as a water storage basin. Furthermore, the Houtrakpolder area forms part of the port’s wider energy transition process, as part of a strategic programme currently being developed in the North Sea Canal area, which represents an attempt to bring together these divergent interests through multi-level governance and design incremental adjustment.
In the Western Scheldt territory, the depoldering measures undertaken, serving flood-risk reduction and habitat compensation under EU nature law, by cross-border agreements between Belgium and the Netherlands are closely tied to the growth of Antwerp's port. The Second Tidal Dock project and the Groot Park Saeftinghe initiative show that development paths unfold between institutional changes introducing new procedures and negotiation processes, and the authorities' protection of established models. In these contexts, the port remains committed to pursuing transition objectives, provided these do not challenge pre-defined scenarios.
The findings show that transitions don’t unfold linearly, but are rather path-dependent as they are influenced by latent long-term power dynamics.
The role of water, as well as threshold spaces between water and land at the port-city interface, as shared resources highlight how transition processes undergo overlapping challenges. In this regard, uncertainty is not only related to the expected outcomes of the institutional agreements, but also to the definition of the action arenas. Which actors are included, and which knowledge is mobilised, are part of the way in which transitions are dealt as processes of institutional learning and change rather than reproducing existing patterns of power imbalances, not leading to a socio-spatial change and more collectively desirable scenarios of legitimacy and justice and implementation.
Moreover, the extent to which transition leads to a greater capacity to integrate different domains demonstrates how real planning and policy setting are promoting transformative processes in terms of adaptive governance.
References
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., & Wester, P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perspective. Water International, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898
Clement, F. (2010). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sci 43, 129–156 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9100-8
Faludi, A., (1996). Framing with images. Environ. Plan. B, 23, 93–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b230093
Hein C. (2011), Port Cities. Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, Routledge, London.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework, The Policy Studies Journal, 39(1):7-27.
Savoldi, F., & Soriani, S. (2026). Planetary boundaries or socio-ecological limits from below? Insights from port cities. Territory, Politics, Governance, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2026.2686253
van de Laar P. (2023), Gattopardian Transitions: Misleading Narratives, Port City Futures blog ,https://www.portcityfutures.nl/news/gattopardian-transitions-misleading-narratives-in-port-city-futures