How to support communities in the long-term sustainability transition: The tailored empowerment program Open Access

Around the world, communities are impacted by a variety of global challenges, including extreme weather associated with climate change, loss of biodiversity, increased pressures from urban development and tourism, as well as land degradation, and changes in traditional and cultural practices (Albert et al. 2019; IPBES 2020; UNDP 2023). Since these challenges are intertwined and very complex, it is urgently necessary to develop multiple, integrated, and flexible solutions for sustainability and resilience. This situation led to governments and scientific communities rethinking the existing policies and strategies, as well as reassessing the distribution of responsibility among various stakeholders. In particular, a range of international and EU regulations (e.g. EU Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Biodiversity Strategy, and UN Paris Agreement), along with various innovative financing mechanisms (e.g. European Investment Bank's program, Horizon Europe, Green Deal, and LIFE + programs), strategies, agenda, and plans (e.g. UN General Assembly (2015) – SDGs, EU National Adaptation Plans, and Biodiversity plans) as well as concepts and approaches (blue-green infrastructure – BGI, ecosystem-based approach, and nature-based solutions (NBS)) have been established to address these pressing challenges. For better integration of these policy instruments into regional and local agendas, it is particularly important to incorporate the social dimension and address sustainability issues more holistically, while also taking into account the opinions of local communities. For example, regarding urban ecosystems, the recently adopted EU Nature Restoration Regulation (Law) replaces rigid quantitative targets with a more flexible approach, requiring member states to foster a continuous increase in urban green areas until a satisfactory level is achieved. This regulation further underscores the importance of co-creation (engaging local communities in decision-making processes) which is considered essential for the success of nature restoration projects. Local communities often possess valuable insights and have a vested interest in the outcomes, making their inclusion crucial for the sustainability of restoration efforts. The Nature Restoration Regulation distinguishes itself from many of the aforementioned environmental policies as it mandates binding enforcement, rather than merely encouraging voluntary actions, which often limits regional implementation. This emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to sustainability that incorporates environmental, economic, and social dimensions. To ensure that the social aspect is strongly promoted, it is essential to listen to local community opinions and foster participatory approaches. Moreover, several studies show that communities often lack a shared sustainability vision, tailored strategies to integrate this vision into regional and local policies, and the necessary resources and capacities for its effective implementation (Wittmayer et al. 2014; Frantzeskaki et al. 2016; Castán Broto et al. 2019; Kapsalis & Kapsalis 2020).

To tackle these challenges, a range of user-driven methodologies has been developed, integrating research and policy with the aim of fostering innovation by collaboratively sensing, testing, and refining complex solutions in real-life contexts through stakeholder involvement (Bulkeley et al. 2016; von Wirth et al. 2019). Among them are Living Labs (Bulkeley et al. 2016; Gerlitz et al. 2024), Transition Labs and Transition Super-Labs (Nevens et al. 2013; Schönwälder 2021), Real-world Labs (Wanner et al. 2018; Bergmann et al. 2021), Resilience Labs (Frantzeskaki 2019) and Sustainability Transition Labs (Wiek et al. 2017; McCrory et al. 2020). While they showcase successful cases in implementing NBS and achieving sustainability, these initiatives primarily focus on experimentation in urban settings, leaving rural areas largely overlooked.

Similar existing approaches such as collaborative adaptive management (Scarlett 2013; Fernández-Giménez et al. 2019), community-based natural resource management (Armitage 2005; Reid 2015), and ecosystem-based management (Tallis et al. 2010), primarily focus on sustainable management of ecosystems through stakeholder collaboration and iterative learning, aiming to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives. They combine both top-down and bottom-up approaches where scientific and local knowledge is enriched by each other through participation. However, these approaches have limitations, such as limited stakeholder participation in decision-making and strong influence from powerful entities (Reid 2015; Fernández-Giménez et al. 2019). Their focus is mainly on the environmental dimension of sustainability, while its social and economic components often remain out of scope. Additionally, these approaches frequently rely on scientific evidence to understand ecosystem dynamics and primarily focus on informing communities rather than actively engaging and empowering them. This reliance often fails to achieve genuine community engagement and empowerment, undervaluing local knowledge and risking the loss of local identities and a sense of ownership. Without participatory activities, scientific knowledge is poorly integrated into the local context, leading to limited outcomes that fail to drive behavioral change or support the sustainability transition effectively.

In order to address the complexity of these issues and the need for diverse policies grounded in a strong participatory approach, alongside the growing research on living labs and community empowerment, the EU Horizon Europe project EmpowerUs has emerged (https://empowerus-project.eu/). The project aims to enhance the resilience of coastal communities by co-creating integrated, flexible, and empowering solutions that support their transition toward sustainability. EmpowerUs recognizes the importance of combining scientific evidence with community knowledge and active participation. For this purpose, a new framework called the ‘Tailored Empowerment Program’ (TEP) has been co-developed to provide a robust synergy between research impacts and community engagement. This framework emphasizes the value of co-creation, knowledge co-production, capacity building, and reflexive monitoring and evaluation within the processes of solutions' development. Moreover, it also enables the exploration and analysis of empowerment processes and outcomes. With this in mind, TEP can be defined as a sustainability transition pathway, comprising a combination of actions and empowerment tools tailored to the specific context of each Living Lab (called a Transition Coastal Lab in the EmpowerUs project – TCL). TCLs represent case study sites for developing new knowledge through co-creation processes that engage communities in planning, designing, real-life testing, and evaluating solutions toward sustainability transition.

Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to: (1) highlight the role of key concepts within the TEP; (2) introduce the TEP framework and the approach to implement it; (3) explain TEP's added value in the sustainability transition context and its benefits for NBS and BGI projects; and (4) discuss the conceptual and practical aspects of TEP framework, including limitations and directions for future research. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of how to better integrate local knowledge with scientific evidence and foster community participation in sustainability transition. Local knowledge refers to the community's understanding, skills, and expertise gained through direct interaction with the environment (IPBES 2019; Smith et al. 2024). Specifically, it encompasses empirical knowledge during communities' cultural practices to sustain their livelihood and connects with the community's values and belief system (Smith et al. 2024). Local (also called traditional) knowledge is recognized as a valuable social resource in community-centered development (IPBES 2019; Kurniawan et al. 2023). In doing so, the presented TEP approach aims to support communities in becoming active agents of change who drive the blue-green transition. Moreover, the paper also reflects on the challenges and opportunities of TEP application in blue-green transition projects such as those realized within the case studies, considering aspects of planning, design, and management. It also explores the current and potential impact of TEP on the community (especially from the empowerment point of view) and environment. By combining multi- and transdisciplinary approaches, the TEP framework provides a systemic and holistic view of blue-green transition mechanisms, specifically focusing on societal challenges and opportunities to overcome them within the transition process. However, TEP not only delivers co-created blue-green solutions to societal challenges, but also contributes to awareness raising, spreading literacy and education, and building capacity of communities toward sustainability and resilience.

The paper is organized into several sections: after introducing the methodological approach, the data used in the research, and study area characteristics, we emphasize the need for the TEP and its added value compared to existing empowerment programs. We then present the main theoretical background that the TEP framework is based on, followed by a brief description of its application. More details on methodological and practical guidance for TEP's co-design and co-implementation are provided separately (see Dushkova & Ivlieva forthcoming). Finally, we discuss the conceptual and practical aspects of the TEP implementation, its innovativeness, and the main lessons learned as well as reflect on its limitations and future research directions. Overall, the paper focuses on the theoretical aspects of the TEP and its co-development process, while real-life implementation results are still ongoing. The latter will be the focus of future research.

Thus, TEP supports the transition of coastal communities toward socio-ecological resilience and sustainability in both the short- and long-term:

• - Short-term, through the implementation of sustainable solution(s) (called ‘pilots’ to test these co-developed solutions within the project's lifetime);

• - Long-term, through the iterative implementation of the entire TEP (which includes other sustainability solutions to be implemented during and after the end of the project).

The implementation of the activities within the TEP is supported by the empowerment tools that are defined as instruments and sets of instructions (e.g. NBS, social innovations, co-creation tools) to perform specific sustainability-related actions while addressing coastal challenges. Therefore, co-developed sustainability transition pathways and empowerment tools within the TEP will help community stakeholders identify and implement effective sustainable alternatives. In total, six TEPs were co-developed (one per TCL) with the local communities, contributing to: (a) Capacity building through skill development and tailored educational materials, (b) Improving the understanding of barriers and enablers for sustainability transition, and (c) Strengthening community participation and co-development of sustainable solutions through NBS and other blue-green projects.

The synthesis of the results obtained through the literature review and discussions with scientific communities supported the refinement of a TEP theoretical framework and a step-wise approach for its application (phase 2). To identify the TCLs' challenges to be addressed by the TEP, a baseline assessment was organized from December 2021 to January 2022 and included an online survey (UFZ responsible) and on-site in-depth interviews (Queen's University Belfast responsible – see Flannery et al. (2023)). They were conducted among the representatives of the TCLs from academia and research organizations public (NGOs) and private business companies. The online survey template consisted of three sections (personal information, main challenges faced by TCL communities, and comments) with 14 questions (both closed and open) (see Survey Template S1 in the Supplementary material). Some questions were weighted using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 0, meaning that the challenge is not relevant at all, to 5, indicating that the challenge is extremely relevant (meaning it is a first-priority challenge to be addressed by the community). In order to approve, contextualize, and gain in-depth knowledge regarding the TEP operationalization, a case study method was applied. This method allowed us to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the TEP framework across different geographical and socio-cultural contexts using six TCLs as case studies (see Table 1). During a series of both on-site and online EmpowerUs project meetings (including steering committee meetings, general assemblies, workshops, webinars, and discussion slots) with the TCLs' representatives, the TEP framework was validated and refined, and guidance for its application was proposed. As a result, an initial theoretical TEP framework and a ready-to-use guidance for its co-development and co-implementation with the local communities were established in December 2023, along with a timeline for upcoming activities.

The latest phase (phase 3) includes the practical implementation of the TEP with the local communities using the guidance developed within phase 2 (six steps to follow). Within the frame of the EmpowerUs project, two series of local workshops with stakeholders in each TCL enabled the integration of new elements into the TEP development process through a participatory approach. During the first series of participatory future scenario workshops conducted in May–June 2023, representatives from each key stakeholder group in the TCLs identified and discussed challenges, as well as potential solutions and visions. Based on these results and considering scientific evidence and expert knowledge, several sustainable solutions (pilot options) to address the identified challenges were co-developed. These pilot options were presented and discussed during the second series of local workshops. As a result of deliberation processes with the local stakeholders, one pilot was selected in each TCL for further implementation as a testing phase of a part of the TEP. Additionally, to support the realization of each pilot, preliminary types and examples of empowerment tools were identified and presented during the second series of local workshops held in October–November 2023. In total, all key groups of the communities have been reached to co-develop the TEP and related sustainable solutions (e.g. NBS) following the EmpowerUs approach that ensures the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the process (based on gender, age, representation of various stakeholder groups). As a result, in Spanish TCL, a total of 21 participants took part in workshop 1 and 17 participants in workshop 2; in Norwegian TCL – 22 and 20, in Irish TCL – 20 and 17, in Finish TCL – 9 and 8, Cypriot TCL – 16 and 19, and in Bulgarian TCL – 18 and 17 participants accordingly.

Finally, an approach for co-monitoring and co-evaluation of TEP's sustainability impact and its role in empowerment was established during phase 4. In order to create a set of indicators for the evaluation of TEP's sustainability impact across all its dimensions (Economy, Environment, and Society), a narrative review of scientific and gray literature was conducted. As a result, a variety of sustainability-related indicators (e.g. core environmental, economic, place regeneration, human health and well-being, participatory planning, and governance, see Table S2 in the Supplementary material) were adapted from existing approaches to assessing NBS impact and community empowerment toward sustainability (e.g. Kabisch et al. 2016; Raymond et al. 2017; Connop et al. 2020; IUCN 2020; EC 2021; Sowińska-Świerkosz et al. 2021; and also the set of indicators identified in the review of Dushkova & Ivlieva (2024)). They were provided to the TCLs as a core set of indicators to support the monitoring and evaluation of TEP impact as well as a tailored set of indicators that have been co-selected according to the specific needs of the TCLs to be applied in a participatory manner (Table S2 in the Supplementary material). These indicators aim to support the assessment of the potential and real benefits of pilots and their contributions to different dimensions of sustainability within the broader TEP. Additionally, an approach for exploring and analyzing social innovations that emerged within the TEP co-implementation has been developed (Dushkova et al. forthcoming). A series of internal project meetings, webinars, and workshops with the TCLs, as well as participatory processes within the TCLs communities (including the utilization of tailored empowerment tools), enabled iterative refinement of the whole TEP and its evaluation approach.

The authors' experience from working on other projects related to sustainability transformation, co-creation, Living Labs, and NBS was used throughout the whole research framework. In particular, work within Eklipse (http://www.eklipse.eu/), RECONECT (http://www.reconect.eu/), CONNECTING Nature (https://connectingnature.eu/), Eco-Ready (https://www.eco-ready.eu/living-labs/) and other H2020 sustainability-related projects shows that the existence of stakeholders willing to become active agents in the empowerment process is an important aspect of community-based development. Through collaboration with various groups of stakeholders on co-creation and also empowering community organizations, we can state that the monitoring and evaluation of empowerment approaches (e.g. social, cultural, political, economic, physical empowerment, and especially empowerment through education) plays a crucial role. Moreover, the literature review of implemented empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) emphasizes monitoring and evaluation as critical components of most programs. These processes not only allow for the observation and documentation of changes but also demonstrate the transformative impact of the particular actions within the program.

However, the review has revealed several knowledge gaps. While there are particular examples of successful empowerment programs, a clear conceptual framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating these programs across diverse local contexts is lacking, limiting their potential for replication and scalability. A more structured and iterative approach is essential to facilitate broader adoption by the communities. The review also revealed the critical importance of understanding the value of the monitoring and evaluation aspects of the programs for assessing and demonstrating their transformative impact. A well-developed evaluation framework can provide valuable guidance to policymakers on the effectiveness of sustainable development measures. This is exactly where the TEP approach proposed in this paper can help bridge this gap.

Considering the approaches used within the reviewed empowerment programs (see Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) and taking into account the gaps mentioned, we decided to theoretically base the TEP framework on four interrelated concepts: participation, empowerment, sustainability (and sustainability transition), and resilience. Additionally, two other approaches, namely NBS and empowerment tools, have been incorporated to better interlink these concepts and ensure the comprehensiveness and inner coherency of the framework (Figure 3). We believe the TEP can serve as a sustainability transition pathway in the long term, fostering innovation with nature and people to address community challenges and promote sustainability-related changes. This approach aims to ensure community resilience and empower the communities to act for these changes. Therefore, it is important to critically reflect on these core TEP-related concepts and approaches and emphasize how they are interlinked to better understand the TEP framework.

Participation. Public participation (or citizen participation) is defined as a process or continuum of interactions between institutions and people, and the different governance arrangements (forms, types, and methods) that moderate them (Kiss et al. 2021; EPA 2023). It is often understood as any process that involves the public in problem-solving or decision-making, where public input is utilized to make better-informed decisions (EEA 2023). In most cases, participation focuses on the co-creation of potential decisions and deliberation on them, including the co-production of knowledge and the values underlying these decisions (EEA 2023). There are various forms and approaches to public participation, such as citizen science, consensus conferences, deliberation workshops, and grassroots bottom-up activities (Alemanno 2022). But in all its forms, public participation aims to allow stakeholders (those with an interest or stake in an issue, including individuals, interest groups, and communities) to influence decisions that affect their lives (EEA 2023; EPA 2023).

Empowerment. As pointed out by several studies (Di Gregorio et al. 2019; Lécuyer et al. 2024), cross-level power imbalances may occur and significantly impact communication and collaboration among different stakeholder groups and levels of governance. Thus, it was decided to consider both concepts – power and empowerment – while developing the conceptual TEP framework. When reviewing sustainability initiatives and implemented programs, we found out that studies often mentioned power as one of the critical concepts in understanding their successes and failures. It was demonstrated how different dimensions of power in co-creation processes influence the achievement of sustainability goals and related sustainability transformation outcomes. Various formats of power (e.g. how to exert influence) have been defined: ‘power to’, ‘power with’, ‘power within’, ‘power for’, ‘visible power’, ‘hidden power’, ‘invisible and systematic power’, and ‘transformative power’ (Lécuyer et al. 2024). Thus, a deeper understanding of power dynamics and power relations among local stakeholders can help balance different interests and better integrate various types of local knowledge. Among the different types of power, ‘transformative power’ plays a pivotal role in empowerment. It is defined as ‘…the capacity to effect positive change at various levels (personal, social, political, and organizational) … and can be strategically mobilized to propose alternative power structures grounded in equity, and inclusion…’ (Lécuyer et al. 2024, p. 1408). Thus, several studies proposed to refer to empowerment as the process of fostering and implementing positive changes/shifts in political, social, and economic power dynamics among and across individuals and social groups (Christens 2019; Schutz 2019; Gaventa 2020; Lécuyer et al. 2024). While ‘power’ is defined as ‘the ability of actors to mobilize resources to achieve a certain goal’ (Avelino & Rotmans 2009, p. 550), the related concept of ‘empowerment’ can be described as the process of gaining power or decision-making capacity. Based on these definitions, in EmpowerUs, we understand empowerment as the process through which actors gain the capacity to mobilize resources and institutions for achieving certain goals. The project operates with three dimensions of empowerment: (1) Access to resources and institutions; (2) Strategies to mobilize them; and (3) The willingness to do so.

Sustainability and sustainability transition. The concept of sustainability was mainstreamed in the 1980s. Even though sustainability and sustainable development are often used interchangeably, important nuances distinguish them. Sustainability refers to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. While sustainability is often considered a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways employed to achieve it. Sustainability transition can be defined as a process of long-term structural change aimed at creating a more sustainable socio-ecological system (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016; Swilling 2020). This process involves profound changes in ways of doing, thinking, and organizing, as well as in the underlying institutions and values (Loorbach et al. 2017).

Resilience. While sustainability refers to the ability to continue important functions without a decline in quality, resilience is often defined as the ability of a social-ecological system to address current challenges/sustain desired outcomes, recover from disturbance, as well as a capacity to survive, adapt, or transform in response to change (Castán Broto et al. 2019; Turner et al. 2022; Sieber et al. 2024). In general, the main frameworks and definitions of resilience emerge in the context of adaptive capacity (Armitage 2005), transformative capacity (Castán Broto et al. 2019), coastal resilience (Masselink & Lazarus 2019), and urban resilience (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016; McCrory et al. 2020) often in the context of environmental hazardous events and in particular climate change (Turner et al. 2022; Sieber et al. 2024). The emphasis is generally on building systems or communities that can adapt, transform, and recover from disruptions, which are key elements of resilience in sustainability science. In this project, all dimensions of resilience are integrated: ecological and socio-economic resilience within a coastal context. Moreover, the project and its TCLs specifically focus on transformation through the co-creation of coastal resilience, which is understood as ‘the capacity of the socio-economic and natural systems in the coastal environment to cope with specific disturbances such as sea level rise, biodiversity loss, extreme events, human impacts, by adapting whilst maintaining essential functions’ (Masselink & Lazarus 2019, p. 2587).

The concepts of sustainability and empowerment are closely interlinked. This interlinkage can be explained through the community's knowledge and dedication to nature conservation research and practice, the availability of environmental education programs, place regeneration initiatives, and the presence of multi-actor environmental management activities. Research by Scheyvens & van der Watt (2021) and Mendoza-Ramos & Prideaux (2017) also confirmed the influence of these elements on a community's capacity to gain the power to protect and maintain local ecosystems. They have also underlined the importance of using specific indicators to monitor and assess both sustainability impacts and community empowerment.

Participation as a transformative tool for empowerment toward sustainability and resilience appears in the form of interactive participation, enabling citizen leadership and opening up new debates, spaces, and opportunities (EEA 2023). As demonstrated by EmpowerUs, for a project to succeed, local actors need to actively take part in designing, implementing, and maintaining sustainability-related initiatives that affect their living conditions. However, despite the underlined benefits of a ‘bottom-up’ approach to sustainable development, some community groups still have insufficient participation in identifying, planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating projects intended to improve their welfare.

Acknowledging the pivotal role of community empowerment in sustainability development and resilience initiatives, the EmpowerUs project aims to clarify the connection between community empowerment and sustainability in all its dimensions. For this purpose, the co-designing of the TEP framework should enable establishing and realizing the sustainability transition pathways for communities. Thus, the framework integrates key structural elements (see Figure 3) and is developed around three main factors that determine community empowerment: community access to information, community participation, including involvement and engagement, and community capacity building for designing and achieving sustainable, resilient futures. Studies (Frantzeskaki 2019; Kiss et al. 2021) demonstrate that deeper forms of engagement, such as the incorporation of multiple citizen perceptions and local knowledge into projects might promote a sense of empowerment or ownership. In this regard, stakeholder involvement, engagement, and finally empowerment can be instrumental in supporting long-term socio-ecological sustainability. A multi-actor co-creation approach can enable communities to act for change (Kabisch et al. 2016; Nesshöver et al. 2017; Raymond et al. 2017).

These four concepts are interwoven in achieving long-term, adaptable solutions (also through NBS) to environmental and societal challenges. Resilience and sustainability depend on the active participation of stakeholders who can contribute their knowledge and ideas to the process. In turn, empowerment supports participation, enabling individuals and communities to contribute meaningfully. Empowering communities strengthens resilience, which is critical for achieving sustainable outcomes. In practice, building resilience and achieving sustainability requires both bottom-up (community-driven) and top-down (policy-driven) approaches, often called multiple levels of governance (Frantzeskaki et al. 2016; Abson et al. 2017; Loorbach et al. 2017; Di Gregorio et al. 2019; Bergmann et al. 2021). Empowerment and participation create the conditions for communities to engage with and influence broader systems, leading to more equitable, effective, and sustainable solutions.

NBS represent a transformative approach to building sustainability and resilience through participation and empowerment (empowerment tools). To address urgent societal challenges and support the achievement of sustainable development goals, the concept of NBS was developed two decades ago (EC 2015; IUCN 2020). NBS integrate key ideas of an ecosystem-based approach (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019), ecosystem protection and restoration (IUCN 2020), ecosystem services (Kabisch et al. 2016; Gómez Martín et al. 2020), green and blue infrastructure (Van der Jagt et al. 2017; Albert et al. 2019; EEA 2021; Sowińska-Świerkosz et al. 2021), and biomimicry (Solano et al. 2023) concepts and are proposed as transformative approaches for building sustainability and resilience. In particular, NBS are defined by the European Commission (EC 2015) as ‘actions […] and solutions to societal challenges […] which are inspired by, supported by, or copied from nature’, and can simultaneously provide multiple environmental, social, and economic co-benefits (e.g. the improvement of place attractiveness, enhancement of health and quality of life, and the creation of green jobs) (EC 2016; Cohen-Shacham et al. 2019; Frantzeskaki 2019; IUCN 2020; EC 2021). Furthermore, NBS are promoted as an essential planning tool for climate change adaptation and mitigation and for solving a broad range of other environmental and societal problems (EC 2016; IUCN 2020; Nesshöver et al. 2017; Raymond et al. 2017). The recent EC report (EC 2021) acknowledges NBS as an innovative approach to socio-ecological adaptation and resilience that equally integrates all three dimensions of sustainability (i.e. social, environmental, and economic). In other words, NBS aim to operationalize an ecosystem services approach within spatial planning policies and practices, fully integrating the ecological dimension, and, at the same time, providing multiple co-benefits for both people and nature. This concept extends beyond traditional approaches that aim to protect and preserve by incorporating the enhancement, restoration, co-creation, and co-design of new green networks with nature that are characterized by multifunctionality and connectivity (EC 2015; Dushkova & Haase 2020; Dushkova & Kuhlicke 2024).

These structural elements of the TEP not only represent the key areas of empowerment (as revealed in Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) but are also linked to participation, sustainability, and resilience. For example, enhancing community interaction through co-creation and participation refers to empowerment and participation concepts but also to sustainability and resilience since the mentioned interaction appears within the sustainability and resilience-related actions/practices. Other elements (e.g. co-developing sustainable solutions or monitoring and evaluation) not only relate to sustainability and resilience but also are linked to empowerment and participation.

Empowerment tools. In co-developing the TEP framework, we referred to the primary project outcome to be achieved, namely, co-creating sustainability transformation mechanisms for the empowerment of coastal communities. As mentioned earlier, empowerment is the process through which actors gain the capacity to mobilize resources and institutions to achieve their goals. To support each of the empowerment dimensions mentioned earlier, a variety of empowerment tools have been revealed. In the project, empowerment tools are represented by a set of solutions, instruments, instructions, strategies, resources, or mechanisms tailored to augment the self-efficacy, autonomy, and active participation of individuals or communities in decision-making processes. It is important to differentiate empowerment tools from participatory tools, which promote the involvement and contribution of people to a program, that in turn may build their capacities, skills, and competencies, yet do not necessarily assist communities to gain more power through collective social and political action. Empowerment tools are designed to support communities in performing specific action(s) (incl. social innovations and NBS) to enable socio-ecological transitions, and increase resilience, business opportunities, and improve the well-being of coastal communities. The preliminary review of existing empowerment tools that proved to be successful in socio-ecological transitions revealed the following main types (Figure 4):

• Knowledge tools (e.g. knowledge synthesis reports, manuals and guidelines for practitioners, and education and training);

• Dialogue/Platform (e.g. science cafés, joint fact-finding workshops, conflict resolution platforms, collaborations with existing demonstration cases);

• Support/Action (actions to support a new governance structure that enables the whole community to be empowered; capacity building activities; cooperation with other stakeholders; creating new values, changing behaviors, building trust, ownership, and a sense of belonging).

The suggested typology of empowerment tools is closely linked with the UN Climate Change approach (the UNFCCC secretariat – UN entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change). This approach was introduced in the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) as a term adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to denote work under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCC n.d.). The overarching goal of ACE is ‘to empower all members of society to engage in climate action, through the six ACE elements – climate change education and public awareness, training, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation on these issues’ (UNFCC n/d).

In order to expand the knowledge and provide a broader scope of such tools across the whole TEP, an Eklipse Expert Working Group was requested to identify and provide a report on how to build resilient coastal communities through NBS and empowerment tools (see Sieber et al. 2024). They developed a catalogue of empowerment tools, which were selected and suggested to the TCLs. The aim was to foster the tailoring of the tools according to their specific needs and contexts, in order to support the implementation of their pilot initiatives and the broader TEP, co-designed with local communities.

The main goal of the TEP is to co-design a participatory and inclusive model for empowering communities for sustainability transformation (taking into consideration all three dimensions: environmental, economic, and social) by optimizing the potential of local resources and capacities of each community through the following tasks:

• Exploring local resource-based economic, social, and nature potentials (resources, ecosystem functions, and services) as a foundation for both short (pilot) and long-term (whole TEP) activities within each community,

• Defining and analyzing factors affecting the success of potential development (including barriers and enablers) for the pilot activities (and afterwards within the whole TEP),

• Analyzing the needs of community stakeholders that would imply to enhance their engagement in sustainability-related actions;

• Identifying and recommending a variety of suitable empowerment tools to support the implementation of actions within the pilot and the whole TEP, in order to enhance community capacity to act for a change;

• Co-designing a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the sustainability impacts and empowerment process and outcomes.

TEPs should support the integration of nature's potential, scientific evidence, and knowledge of the local communities through the process of co-creation (e.g. co-designing the solutions and co-producing the knowledge) within a sustainability transition, including the NBS approach. An important element of the TEP is the concept of a participatory development program, where inclusiveness and co-creation become keywords representing how sustainable development is carried out by involving the community from the beginning as planners, designers, implementers, evaluators, and supervisors of activities (incl. NBS interventions) within the sustainability transition. In this regard, every TEP consists of a participatory development model that is based on community social capital, namely networks of cooperation, trust, relationships between actors, and social and institutional management to enable the sustainability transition. The main objective of the TEP method is to produce program designs that align with the community's circumstances and desires, as well as based on solid scientific evidence. Moreover, through co-creation, capacity building, and knowledge co-production, TEP also aims to empower local communities by helping them assess their situation, gain the agency/sense of control, and then co-plan, co-design, and co-implement the solutions (pilot). Since TEP combines both nature- and social-related components, it can be seen as a strategy for promoting the broader uptake and implementation of NBS.

Figure 5 shows how each of the six steps in the TEP application relates to those elements of empowerment and demonstrates the evolving role of scientists throughout the whole process:

• Step 1: A baseline assessment was conducted to analyze the current socio-economic and environmental situation as well as the governance structure of each TCL (step 1). In particular, the assessment aimed to define the causes of the particular problem/challenge as well as the impact of this problem/challenge on both people (impact on people) and nature (impact on nature). Additionally, stakeholder mapping and analysis were conducted to reveal the key stakeholder groups, including their role in/impact on the project. The analysis also considered aspects of equity, inclusivity, and justice, particularly focusing on how the project may influence different stakeholder groups. This approach allowed us to integrate various stakeholders' perspectives including those from marginalized communities and to ensure that the project is designed with fairness and equal opportunities for all. This also helped to ensure that the benefits of the project are fairly distributed and that any potential negative impacts on vulnerable groups are mitigated. This was employed using desktop research, questionnaire survey (UFZ responsible), and on-site in-depth interviews (Queen's University Belfast responsible, see Flannery et al. 2023) with various stakeholder groups of the lab area to explore current challenges, local conditions, and another context-specific information (see Template S1 in Supplementary material).

• Step 2: Defining challenges and possible solutions with the community. Within this step, the challenges identified through the survey and interviews (see step 1), were collaboratively explored and discussed (extended and fine-tuned) with communities to prioritize them based on the impact assessment on nature and people as well as community perspectives. For this purpose, stakeholder workshop 1 was organized in each TCL with representatives from various stakeholder groups that also allowed the revealing of the future visions toward sustainability transition. The step relates to the following core element of empowerment: ‘Awareness raising, problem identification, and understanding’.

• Step 3: Co-developing TEP with the community and discussing pilot options. At this step, the results of the stakeholder workshop 1 (see step 2) were aligned with scientific evidence (literature review) to reveal various options for sustainability solutions (including NBS). The results were further discussed with the community at the stakeholder workshop 2 organized in each TCL to a) explore the feasibility of the proposed solutions (including NBS), b) to identify the core stakeholder groups (task forces) that will take leadership in co-creating those solutions and c) to discuss the whole TEP framework. Also, barriers and opportunities for the realization of the planned pilot actions were explored together with the stakeholders. Additionally, these options were evaluated to reveal their potential ecological, social, and economic benefits/sustainability impact (using a set of indicators proposed in Table S2 in the Supplementary material). This particular step enabled the integration of such core elements of empowerment as ‘Learning, training, and capacity building’, ‘Improving community access to resources’, and ‘Enhancing community interaction and participation’ in ‘Developing sustainable solutions and management plans’ (i.e. pilot solutions co-created to address the challenges, with barriers and resources for implementation identified alongside).

• Step 4: Identifying the empowerment tools to support the implementation of the pilot solution and the broader TEP. The empowerment tools have been initially identified by scientists/both internal and external experts (see Dushkova et al. (2024) and the catalogue of empowerment tools by Sieber et al. (2024)) and subsequently tailored to the needs of the particular TCL. They aimed to not only support the implementation of both the pilots and the broader TEP in promoting sustainability transitions (e.g. through various community-led NBS) but also to foster community empowerment through all seven core elements of empowerment mentioned in Figure 3.

• Step 5: Implementing the selected pilot solution(s) within the TEP. At this step, pilot options (those with the highest relevance to the community needs and capacity, as well as a high level of feasibility and sustainability impact) were finally approved within the local communities, to be implemented and supported by several empowerment tools. The remaining options, including other potential NBS, were integrated into the TEP as future long-term solutions.

• Step 6: Refining the TEP iteratively. The TEP continuously undergoes refinements based on a monitoring and evaluation approach and a list of indicators (see Table S2 in Supplementary material). It is being adapted based on the outcomes from short-term actions within the pilots both from the perspectives of sustainability impact and empowerment (e.g. core environmental, economic, place regeneration, human health and well-being, participatory planning, and governance, empowerment – see Table S2 in the Supplementary material). It is important to note that monitoring and evaluation start at the very beginning and go throughout the whole process of the TEP framework implementation. It enables the assessment of the TEP's transformative impact and achievement of its goals. More details on the application of the TEP framework including practical guidance are provided in a separate paper (Dushkova et al. forthcoming).

Table 2 provides an overview of various approaches developed within the TEPs to address socio-economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and governance challenges considering the specific context of each TCL. Following the framework, each TEP applies unique but interconnected strategies to promote sustainability primarily focusing on improving livelihoods, ensuring a balance between economic growth and environmental policies, addressing governance issues, and enhancing community integration. Specifically:

• The TEP of Træna TCL (Norway) focuses on sustainable housing, transportation, tourism, and food production while promoting social integration and local business development (also through related NBS).

• The TEP of Connemara TCL (Ireland) aims to strengthen social enterprises, provide sustainable housing, and enhance economic resilience by fostering a more sustainable coastal economy through capacity building and nature-based and inclusive business.

• Burgas TCL (Bulgaria) in its TEP develops sustainable ecotourism, wetland restoration, and climate adaptation strategies while promoting civic engagement and environmental education.

• The TEP of Cap de Creus TCL (Spain) fosters eco-social networking and cross-sector collaboration, focusing on sustainable fisheries, biodiversity conservation, and promoting seafood sovereignty through local gastronomy.

• Åland TCL (Finland), in its TEP, concentrates on improving fisheries management, supporting sustainable harvesting, and restoring key ecosystems while integrating the fishing sector into long-term municipal strategies.

• The TEP of Eastern Limassol TCL (Cyprus) centers on a Coastal Master Plan to balance economic growth, residential expansion, and nature conservation while promoting participatory planning and sustainable marine resource management.

Despite the differences in the local context (e.g. urban vs. rural specifics and their corresponding challenges), the TEP framework is tailored to each TCL allowing them to realize their transitional pathways toward sustainability. We can state that the common features of each TEP include: (1) sustainability (e.g. fostering long-term resilience and strengthening human–nature relationships through sustainable solutions, incl. NBS); (2) community empowerment (e.g. utilizing various empowerment tools to support capacity building, co-creation, participatory decision-making, and governance); (3) economic and social development (e.g. creating job opportunities, improving living conditions, and enhancing economic resilience).

We developed the TEP framework based on the following key concepts: participation, empowerment, sustainability, and resilience, all of which are interlinked through NBS and empowerment tools. A review of existing empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) revealed that these concepts are associated with (1) improvement in community participation and capacity building, particularly by improving community access to information on sustainability development projects and (2) encouraging community involvement in the development of projects with short- and long-term impact and are based on inclusivity and social justice. Additionally, as stated in various studies, community empowerment has become an increasingly important aspect of sustainable development policies for both urban and rural areas (Lyons et al. 2001; Hölsgens et al. 2023; Toniolo et al. 2023). It was demonstrated that sustainable development depends on the existence of civic society's capability for involvement, which requires community participation and empowerment (Kurniawan et al. 2023). In regard to NBS-related projects, participation, and engagement are often viewed as mechanisms to encourage or empower stakeholders, enabling them to act toward and envision sustainability (Hölscher et al. 2019; Sieber et al. 2024).

Hereafter we highlight the added value of the TEP approach in comparison to existing frameworks and explain how it contributes to promoting sustainability and resilience. Specifically, it examines how TEP, as a bottom-up approach, integrates scientific and local knowledge, fosters participation through the concept of Living Lab, empowers communities in sustainability transitions, and promotes NBS. These elements position TEP as a comprehensive strategy for advancing sustainable change.

TEP can be conceptualized as part of a broader empowerment initiative. Its framework was developed based on a literature review (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024), which provided the TEP theoretical backbone. During the conceptualization of the TEP framework, the authors integrated insights from this review and expert consultations, to identify several critical gaps to be further addressed by the TEP. Among them is the lack of a clearly defined conceptual framework, which limits the adaptability of empowerment programs to be designed, implemented, and evaluated in various local contexts. This deficiency hampers their potential for replication and upscaling. Consequently, the added value of the TEP framework is in addressing these gaps by proposing a more structured, accessible, and iterative approach to community empowerment, providing communities with clear guidelines to act for a change toward sustainability. The TEP framework has been discussed with various experts in the field of sustainability transition and refined accordingly. By embedding diverse empowerment tools, TEP encourages communities to act independently rather than serve as passive recipients of external solutions, thereby fostering more effective and sustainable transformative change.

As we have learned, many approaches defined as ‘community-based’ (e.g. collaborative adaptive management, community-based natural resource management, or ecosystem-based management) were, in fact, externally initiated and often used as a facade for top-down management, whereas participatory planning methods, genuine community engagement, and empowerment were rarely employed (Armitage 2005; Scarlett 2013; Reid 2015; O'Higgins et al. 2020). Compared to them, TEP's distinctive feature is the active use of a bottom-up approach to ensure equal dialogue between researchers and local stakeholders. This approach provides added value in addressing the gaps identified in the frameworks mentioned above by fostering the integration of local knowledge with scientific evidence. This ensures that the local identities and expertise of communities are both acknowledged and valued, reducing the risks of ‘leaving someone behind’ or underutilizing community potential. Furthermore, the use of participatory methods also allows TEP to incorporate the long-term visions of communities, co-created through dialogue between the community members and scientific representatives, ensuring that the chosen transition pathways are both sustainable and feasible. By embedding empowerment tools, suggested by researchers and co-selected with the community, TEP positions local actors as active, independent agents of change rather than passive end-users/recipients of solutions, thus facilitating more effective, sustainable, and long-term transformative change.

TEP with integrated NBS contributes to the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs in multiple ways:

• TEP enables simultaneously addressing both public interests and environmental aspects of sustainability; this dual impact makes the TEP framework a powerful mechanism for tackling sustainability challenges in an integrated and participatory way;

• TEP calls for action from all sectors and stakeholders, including public institutions, businesses, civil society, and researchers, thus contributing to cross-sectoral collaboration and promoting effective institutional frameworks;

• TEP emphasizes the critical role of local knowledge and tailored contextualized actions in sustainability transition;

• TEP allows the integration of different aspects of sustainability while implementing policies and considering both synergies and tradeoffs across different SDGs;

• Since SDGs often demand robust monitoring, reporting, and the use of relevant indicators to track progress, TEP provides the corresponding approach and tools (e.g. techniques and indicators for monitoring and evaluation of sustainability impact and community empowerment).

Our experience from various sustainability-related projects demonstrates that the Living Lab model is an effective format for mobilizing community resources, stimulating participation, and testing co-created solutions within the TEP framework. Recent studies (Bergmann et al. 2021; Gerlitz et al. 2024) also emphasize the success of Living Labs in innovation testing, refining, and scaling impactful solutions. Moreover, the European Network of Living Labs was created in 2006 as an open and citizen-centric innovation ecosystem with the aim of developing a global innovation infrastructure that empowers everyone to co-create means and value with and for European citizens. However, for TEP to be fully effective, it is essential that Living Labs remain open to external actors (e.g. those outside the local community) and facilitate ongoing knowledge exchange among all project participants. In the EmpowerUs project, TCLs were created with a distinctive focus on being guided by scientific leads and hosts that represent the communities. These institutions play a vital role in mediating between the scientific community and local stakeholders, ensuring effective knowledge transfer and co-production, capacity building, and the alignment of local and scientific expertise.

In its primary goal, TEP intends to produce a participatory and inclusive model for transitioning toward sustainability, considering all its dimensions (environmental, economic, and social). Given that TEP incorporates nature's potential with economic and social capacities, it can be viewed as a strategy to foster the widespread adoption and implementation of NBS (e.g. through integrating the key IUCN (2020) criteria such as NBS are based on inclusive, transparent, and empowering governance; effectively address societal challenges; are managed adaptively, tailored to natural and cultural contexts; provide mutual benefits for both people and nature). This strategy supports optimizing local resources and community capabilities by investigating the economic, social, and ecological potential to improve ecosystem functions and enhance the delivery of ecosystem services (e.g. through the implementation of certain interventions such as NBS). By identifying and evaluating barriers and enabling factors that influence the success of potential intervention, NBS within the TEP can be a response to, or a catalyst for, social innovations that can boost community capacity for sustainable change. Additionally, by providing a set of indicators for monitoring and evaluation, TEP helps to assess the sustainability impact and community empowerment resulting from NBS implementation. Furthermore, TEP can also integrate several other sustainability-related activities that are not explicitly framed as NBS.

The initial lessons learned from the operationalization of the TEP theoretical framework in real-life settings, such as Living Labs/TCLs, can be summarized around the following points:

• The value of a shared understanding of the TEP theoretical concept among key stakeholders is crucial. It is essential to build capacities for them, as well as for facilitators in advance. This ensures that the community has an active and well-informed think tank group that understands the core structural elements of the TEP framework and their importance in achieving the community's shared vision. While it may not be necessary for every stakeholder to be fully familiar with the TEP framework, a collectively generated future vision can serve as a unifying element and a driving force for the whole process of change (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; Kapsalis & Kapsalis 2020). However, to ensure the smooth process of the TEP operationalization and to avoid stagnation during the initial phase, it is important to make sure that such a think tank group is knowledgeable about the TEP concept and committed to promoting it. Another important role of this think tank group is to initiate the mapping and analysis of other key community stakeholders and decide on effective ways to foster their involvement and engagement.

• Unlocking the potential for a sustainability transition through the identification of its barriers and enablers. It is important to explore barriers as hindering factors to TEP implementation, as well as analyze their interrelationships. To overcome these barriers, the corresponding enablers should be identified to boost the TEP realization. Our experience shows that the most frequently appeared barriers include lack of political will and long-term commitment, insufficient financial resources, path dependency, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, sectoral silos (institutional fragmentation), lack of public awareness, uncertainty about the benefits of the solution, as well as limited land and time availability. These barriers have also been emphasized in other studies, where a set of leveraging points/enablers were identified, such as restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in the pursuit of sustainability (Abson et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; Ershad Sarabi et al. 2019). In EmpowerUs, we primarily focus on the following groups of drivers for sustainability transition: agency and interaction (incl. creating and implementing new governance structures based on broad participation, diverse actor networks, and community empowerment) and development processes (incl. system awareness, collective visioning, practical experimentation, reflexivity, and capacity building) (that is in line with the approaches of Castán Broto et al. 2019).

• Importance of co-creation/collaborative work organized in an inclusive and participatory manner. Within EmpowerUs, the flexible co-creation framework is developed that offers space, time, and thematic impulses for the processes of empowerment of coastal communities in building sustainable and resilient futures. This framework is based on co-creation principles, including respectful cooperation, and environmental and social justice, that are in line with the co-creation approaches of other studies (Nevens et al. 2013; Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; Castán Broto et al. 2019; Dushkova & Kuhlicke 2024). Co-creation therefore is a central feature of the TEP, which serves as the foundation for its implementation. It is important to enhance capacities, skills, and attitudes that allow the stakeholders to become truly independent after the project ends. In this regard, empowerment tools play a vital role in supporting communities through their pilot actions. Furthermore, several studies conducted in different countries demonstrate that active community participation and empowerment contribute to the success of regional sustainable development (Kabisch et al. 2016; UNEP 2019).

• Enabling conditions for continuous skills development, contextual knowledge co-production, and facilitating capacity building. As researchers working at the science-policy-society interface, we would recommend addressing certain knowledge gaps and competency needs within the broader community. In particular, capacity building and co-production of knowledge are central to addressing sustainability challenges. Our experience indicates that it can be achieved by embedding the following elements in the development of the TEP framework: environmental awareness raising, blue-green/ocean literacy and system thinking approaches for preparing and organizing co-creation activities. Also, mainstreaming participatory policy-making (e.g. through polycentric and more adaptive governance), expanding the capacity to undertake inter- and transdisciplinary research and actions, as well as continuous organizational learning, along with the institutional feasibility, can play an important role in this context (Van der Jagt et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; von Wirth et al. 2019). These processes must guide further knowledge development, uptake, and application as part of an iterative and holistic process toward sustainability transformation. TEP in this regard, serves as an important tool for building capacities and fostering empowerment of the local communities for a sustainable transition.

• Building more robust systems of knowledge generation and exchange that are capable of engaging a wide range of stakeholders. Sustainability-oriented interdisciplinary scientific networks should be actively engaged in capacity building. They are a vital source of new innovative knowledge that facilitates ongoing and dynamic adaptation practice. The use of a knowledge brokering mechanism, such as Eklipse, provides added value to this process by bringing together a wider range of expertise than the one present in a project's consortium. Through the application of a robust methodology and ethical infrastructure, the synthesis of existing knowledge by an established group of experts from various scientific backgrounds allows the creation of deep evidence-based knowledge that can increase the resilience of communities in their transition toward greater sustainability. It is essential to create collaboration between social and natural scientists and practitioners, suggest and encourage extended training that strengthens scientific capacities, and develop science communication skills to improve the interaction with policy-makers and the wider community. In EmpowerUs, an interdisciplinary expert working group was established to synthesize the current state of evidence concerning the role of NBS and community empowerment tools in addressing coastal challenges (Sieber et al. 2024).

• Acknowledging the variety of research community's roles. Considering that people cannot be empowered by others, the role of researchers in sustainability transition projects (and specifically in EmpowerUs) is rather to catalyze, facilitate, and support coastal communities in recognizing and enhancing their power through a variety of existing empowerment tools while co-producing new ones. This strong participatory, multi-actor approach and transdisciplinary focus of the project is a real added value to avoid a top-down model of knowledge delivery (instead of fostering knowledge co-production). This very much aligns with the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that can only be achieved through the engagement and support from the community as a whole. However, considering the challenges in regard to the conflicting views and power dynamics, it requires a considerable endeavor from project partners and Living Labs to ensure inclusive, equitable, and just co-design and co-implementation of innovative and socially accepted sustainable solutions. Another important matter to be considered in this regard is building trust between the researchers, key stakeholders, and the wider community (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018). To achieve this, researchers should be transparent in demonstrating their interests, actions, and expectations from the collaboration with local stakeholders (Frantzeskaki & Rok 2018; Hölscher et al. 2022). Research, in this context, becomes part of activities that can produce social impact. Our experience shows that researchers often play the role of mediators between different (sometimes conflicting) views and interests. Initially, they may be more actively engaged in the co-creation process, but over time their role can shift to providing consultancy on demand, supporting communities as they increasingly take ownership of sustainable solutions.

Through the process of TEP development and implementation, we identified the following gaps and limitations to be addressed within future research, to which the following recommendations have been proposed:

• Define in advance active stakeholders and already established networks to support the long-term perspective. The TEP concept has been developed in a specific context to align with the particular scope of an EU-funded project. Moreover, collaboration with the local community has been organized through the TCL academic lead (representative from academia and research organizations) and the host (representative from an NGO or state organization, and consulting company); thus, the communication between other members of the consortium and the broader TCL communities was mostly organized by them. Although the TEP has been mostly initiated by academia, research organizations, and NGOs, which means that the need for TEP was not coming from the broader community, this initiative represented the common vision of the community that first came from long-lasting cooperation with different groups of stakeholders. Moreover, this future vision and options/solutions to realize it were discussed, refined, and finally validated with the whole community (since the workshops, surveys, and interviews allowed to engage the representatives from each community group, considering leaving no one behind approach promoted by EEA (2023) and implemented by the EmpowerUs project. However, there is still room for testing a fully bottom-up initiative. In order to address this and be able to validate the full potential of the TEP, particular scenarios for real-life applications and optimal scales should be developed, considering the aspects of ownership and long-term perspective, as well as the possible options for effective governance. The design of TEP implementation assumes that it will take place within the framework of a Living Lab (called TCLs in the EmpowerUs project), where a pool of active stakeholders has already been formed, resources have been mobilized, and the geographical boundaries of the area have been defined. Thus, the need to establish such a framework has to be considered to ensure a successful TEP application.

• Critically analyze power relationships and leadership within the community and organize a co-creation process that avoids imbalances. The specifics of the context mentioned above pre-determined the existing power relationships in the communities where the TEP concept was tested. These dynamics affected the representation of several actors and their interests. As stated by Avelino et al. (2023) and Wittmayer et al. (2014), the issue of power relations is closely linked to the transformative potential of sustainability initiatives. Thus, it is important to further analyze the local socio-political dynamics of systemic change to better understand what the key roles and activities of the involved actors are and how they can evolve within the process of sustainability transition. For the successful design and implementation of the TEPs, it is essential to engage a wide range of stakeholders, sometimes with diverging, contradictory, or even conflicting interests. Mediation and conflict resolution play a critical role by providing structured and neutral platforms for dialogue and understanding. Fostering better communication and collaboration will allow stakeholders to clarify misunderstandings and reach a compromise tailored to the core needs of all parties. Trained facilitators should be involved in the development of TEPs to support this process, and to make sure that power relationships do not create significant imbalances between stakeholders.

• Ensure community ownership of TEP development and design. In the EmpowerUs project, the TEP framework was tested in the context of six TCLs and validated by only two entities – the academic lead and the host. This means that feedback from a broad range of stakeholders was translated and transmitted to the project consortium through the academic lead and the host (first due to language differences/barriers). However, as pointed out by Hobson et al. (2019), Linnér & Wibeck (2020), and Toniolo et al. (2023), community ownership is one of the essential components of successful sustainability initiatives, which can also be applicable to the TEP. Our previous review of empowerment programs (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) also revealed that ownership and responsibility, along with participation, collective action, and local knowledge, are the key focus areas of empowerment. Thus, to achieve it, the project developed a co-creation pathway based on a multi-actor approach; additionally, a variety of empowerment tools have been identified to support the active involvement of community stakeholders in planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating sustainable development initiatives that impact their lives (Dushkova et al. 2024; Sieber et al. 2024). Studies (EEA 2021; Alemanno 2022; Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) confirm that when the community is active in developing a certain project, collectively manages assets (e.g. power grids, housing, or businesses), and takes ownership of the project in general, it tends to be more committed to its success and takes greater responsibility for its long-term sustainability. Furthermore, the set of indicators has been developed to not only support the TCLs in monitoring and evaluating the TEP sustainability impact but also to assess how the community empowerment process unfolds and which parameters can be monitored to achieve the desired outcomes.

• Plan for long-term commitment and resource allocation (e.g. financial and time costs to ensure TEP cost-efficiency). From an implementation perspective, the TEP framework might require additional effort, time, and financial resources, specifically, by organizing participatory processes, engaging all stakeholders, selecting appropriate experts, and maintaining the momentum of the core active group. TEP is not designed for quick responses; its primary focus is on long-term transformation, ensuring ongoing stakeholder engagement and building capacity in communities to independently address particular challenges. One TEP can consist of different NBS with quick and visible benefits (e.g. community gardens) that require less time, effort, and funding compared to other NBS where the first benefits would be only delivered in the long-term (e.g. tree planting as NBS). As a result, the TEP implementation cycle may demand extensive time commitments, including negotiations with stakeholders, organizing participatory activities following the ‘Leave No One Behind’ principle, and embedding particular sustainability interventions (e.g. NBS) within policy-regulation frameworks and cultural contexts. Additionally, financial resources are also necessary for expert consultations, training sessions, and other capacity building activities, making TEP a resource-intensive approach to foster sustainable change.

This paper introduces the TEP framework as a pathway toward sustainability transition that integrates nature's potential, scientific evidence, and local knowledge through processes of co-creation (e.g. co-designing solutions and co-producing knowledge). By reflecting on various existing approaches to supporting sustainability transitions in communities (Living Labs, collaborative adaptive management, and ecosystem-based management), we discuss the key findings from the literature review on existing empowerment programs toward sustainability and resilience (Dushkova & Ivlieva 2024) and the identified research gaps. Next, we demonstrate how these gaps can be addressed by the TEP concept that allows for shifting the role of the community from the end-users or passive beneficiaries of blue-green technologies (incl. NBS) to active agents of change that drive this transition. The research presents the TEP framework and its co-development process, along with an approach for its practical implementation, and demonstrates the first outcomes from its operationalization in the TCLs. Thus, we primarily focus on making a theoretical rather than an empirical contribution and demonstrate the added value of TEP by merging the conceptual approaches of participation, empowerment, sustainability, and resilience through NBS and empowerment tools. The added value of TEP refers to providing: (1) a bottom-up approach that aligns scientific outputs with local knowledge on sustainability and resilience; (2) a sustainability transition pathway that enhances participation through the living lab approach; (3) a strategy for community empowerment in sustainability transitions and (4) an approach for further NBS promotion. The paper reflects on the main lessons learned from the operationalization of the TEP framework within the EmpowerUs project, as well as on its limitations and directions for future research (e.g. the specific context of TEP development and implementation; power relationships, and leadership in the community; and community ownership). We believe that the proposed TEP framework has the potential to support a broad range of community stakeholders who seek a well-structured, suitable, comprehensive, and practically oriented approach that facilitates and fosters community empowerment toward sustainability transition.

The authors would like to thank the EmpowerUs project consortium for the productive discussions on the TEP prototype and framework. We appreciate the support of individual experts in discussing and improving the TEP framework, as well as their valuable comments. Particularly, we thank Maria Ignatieva (UWA), Dagmar Haase (HU), Harineeswari Meenakshi Sundaram (UFZ), Zora Reckhaus (UFZ), Anastasia Konstantinova (RUDN), Slava Vasenev (WURL), and Victoria Novikova-Dickey. The authors also extend their gratitude to the editor and the reviewers for their helpful reviews and constructive comments.

The work was supported by the H2020 Europe Project ‘EmpowerUs: Socio-economic Empowerment of Coastal Communities as Users of the Sea to Ensure Sustainable Coastal Development’ (2022–2025), Grant Agreement No. 101059957. The publication has been prepared within the UFZ Integration Platform Projects ‘Sustainable future land use. Provisioning natural resources, biodiversity, and ecosystem services’ (Ecosystems of the future) and ‘Societal Transformations towards Sustainability’ (Transformations toward resilient cities, Subproject Blue-green transformation).

D.D. conceptualized and supervised the study, developed its methodology, collected the data, conducted the analysis, validated the results, wrote, reviewed, and edited the article, and prepared the visualizations. O.I. conceptualized the study, developed its methodology, collected the data, conducted the analysis, wrote and edited the article, and prepared the visualizations. C.P. participated in the conceptualization of the study and development of its methodology, wrote and reviewed the article, and prepared a visualization. M.V. developed the initial idea for this framework, conceptualized, supervised the study, and wrote and reviewed the article.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.