Transforming Cities to Meet 21st Century Challenges: Insights from New Urban Developments in Australia

Abstract

Australian cities face significant and growing challenges due to the combined impacts of population growth, climate change, unsustainable consumption, and digital disruption. While new services and technologies are being developed to support improved urban and environmental sustainability outcomes, significant barriers to change persist. To devise strategies addressing the resistance to change, we explore the Australian urban planning and development system to identify constraints and enablers of innovation, deconstructing commonly cited barriers such as ‘path dependency’, ‘technological lock-in’, and ‘short-termism’. We used a mixed-method approach consisting of a national cross-sectional survey and two urban development case studies. Based on its findings, this paper argues for an enhancement of the system-wide innovation capacity of Australian cities to address environmental, social, and economic pressures and achieve sustainability and resilience goals. Building and extending upon transitions theory, strategic action fields, and urban experimentation and innovation, this paper sets out a rationale for increased investment in Australia’s urban innovation ecosystem and provides five strategic actions to guide urban decision-makers, planners, and industry stakeholders. It highlights the necessity of fostering adaptive policy environments and creating dedicated zones in urban greenfield developments for sustainability innovation and experimentation to inspire and accelerate system-wide change.

1. Introduction

Urban areas are home to more than half of the world’s population, with an estimated 4.5 billion people (55% of the global population) living in cities as of 2022. This figure is expected to increase by another half a billion by 2030 [1], aligning with the timeline for achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2]. Cities are significant contributors to global environmental change [3], accounting for 60–80% of global energy use and related emissions [4]. Transformative changes in urban planning and development (UP&D) systems are critical to addressing global sustainability challenges [5].

Global frameworks such as SDGs and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provide national governments with mandates to pursue mission-oriented challenges. At the local level, cities are increasingly embracing innovation and experimentation to support sustainability transitions [6,7,8,9]. While experimentation tests new solutions, innovation involves putting new solutions to practical use and can be evidenced by the application of novel technologies, policies, tools, services, professional practices, and business and governance models. A growing body of research has applied transitions theory to urban contexts, exploring themes such as urban experimentation, governance innovation, and sustainability transitions in cities [6,8,10]. This body of work has underscored the potential of cities as key arenas for sustainability transitions due to their concentration of resources, governance capacity, and innovation networks [11]. However, it has also revealed persistent challenges, including institutional inertia, fragmented governance, socio-spatial inequalities, and difficulties in scaling up successful innovations beyond niche experiments. These insights highlight the gap between the conceptual ambition of transitions theory—focused on systemic, large-scale transformation—and the slower, more fragmented processes often observed in UP&D practice. This gap is particularly evident in Australia, where the regulatory frameworks and market dynamics tend to produce incremental improvements rather than transformative change [12]. In this study, we use a national survey of the Australian UP&D system and two in-depth urban development case studies to identify barriers to and enablers of sustainability innovations. Building on these insights, we propose strategic actions for enhancing the innovation capacity within greenfield developments, with the aim of accelerating transformative change that leads to measurable improvements in sustainability, resilience, and livability outcomes.

1.1. Greenfield Developments: A Strategic Opportunity

Australia is one of the most urbanized nations in the world, with 89% of the population living in urban areas [13]. Despite consistently high rankings for livability [14], Australian cities face mounting sustainability challenges, including rapid population growth [15], shifting demographics [16], rising social inequalities [17], ageing and inadequate infrastructure [18], unsustainable resource consumption [19], housing affordability pressures [20], dependence on private vehicles [21], and growing climate change impacts [22].

In this context, greenfield developments—new urban areas built on previously undeveloped land—offer a strategic opportunity to address these challenges. Traditionally, greenfields in Australia have followed slow, incremental innovation trajectories, largely shaped by risk-averse governance and a focus on compliance with periodically ratcheted regulatory standards [23]. State and territory governments typically enforce these standards as the primary mechanism for advancing sustainability, supplemented by ad hoc incentives and voluntary initiatives (e.g., for solar PVs, battery storage, etc.). While some Australian cities participate in global sustainability (movement) networks such as ICLEI and C40, the reliance on technological solutions and market-based approaches has often led to incremental improvements rather than systemic change and occasionally to unintended consequences, such as the exacerbation of social inequities [24,25].

UP&D systems remain constrained by entrenched institutional logics, fragmented governance structures, and risk-averse market dynamics [26,27]. These factors contribute to the obduracy of urban infrastructures, reinforcing path dependencies and lock-in effects that inhibit transformative change [28,29]. While cities are often considered nodes of innovation and experimentation [6,8], realizing their potential to drive holistic sustainability transitions requires overcoming these deeply embedded systemic barriers.

Such circumstances are not unique to Australia and are relevant to jurisdictions with similar planning regimes and market structures. Greenfield developments offer a relatively unconstrained context in which planners, developers, and governments can trial new approaches to urban design, infrastructure delivery, and governance. Compared to established urban areas, greenfields provide a ‘clean slate’ with fewer legacy constraints, making them ideal test beds for more ambitious sustainability initiatives. Leveraging this potential requires deliberate strategies to overcome institutional inertia and risk aversion and to foster collaboration among key stakeholders. In this study, we explore how these strategic opportunities can be realized to accelerate more transformative outcomes in UP&D.

1.2. The Theoretical Framework and Rationale

A variety of theoretical perspectives offer insights into sustainability transitions in urban contexts. Urban Political Ecology [30] foregrounds power relations and socio-environmental justice, while Institutional Theory [31] highlights the role of formal and informal governance structures. Innovation Systems Theory [32] focuses on the dynamics of technological development and diffusion within innovation ecosystems. However, these perspectives alone are insufficient for understanding the multi-scalar, socio-technical complexity inherent in UP&D systems.

This study adopts transitions theory, specifically the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), as its primary analytical framework due to its strength in explaining complex socio-technical transitions across scales [9,33]. The MLP conceptualizes sustainability transitions as interactions among niche innovations, incumbent regimes, and broader socio-technical landscapes. While the MLP has been instrumental in advancing transition studies, it has been critiqued for under-theorizing the agency and actor dynamics within regimes [34,35].

To address this gap, we integrate strategic action field (SAF) theory [36,37,38,39], which offers a more granular understanding of how actors interact within institutional fields. SAF theory focuses on how incumbent and challenger actors form coalitions, contest rules, and engage in strategic action to effect the power dynamics or social practice within a ‘field’ —the unit of collective social action. By combining the MLP and SAF frameworks, we provide a richer analysis of the socio-institutional dynamics shaping greenfield innovation trajectories.

Recent studies, such as Raven et al. [6] and Kungl and Hess [38], have shown that integrating the MLP with theories founded in social practice can address critiques of the MLP’s structural focus by highlighting the role of actor agency, strategic interactions, and contested governance dynamics. Raven et al. [6], for example, demonstrates how SAFs provide insight into the micro-politics and actor negotiations that shape urban experimentation, complementing the MLP’s focus on broader regime and landscape structures. Similarly, Kungl and Hess [38] illustrated how SAFs clarify the mechanisms through which incumbent regimes maintain stability or undergo transformation by analyzing actor coalitions and the conflicts within and between fields.

While these studies have focused largely on urban experiments and sectoral transitions (e.g., energy), our study applies the combined MLP and SAF frameworks specifically to greenfield urban developments—a context that has received limited attention in the literature on sustainability transitions. In this way, we examine how actors strategically navigate and reconfigure the UP&D system to foster radical innovation in greenfields.

By combining the MLP and SAF frameworks, we provide a richer analysis of the socio-institutional dynamics shaping greenfield innovation trajectories.

1.3. This Research’s Aim, Questions, and Objectives

A growing global urban transformation movement has emerged in recent years, seeking to shift the trajectory of cities toward more sustainable outcomes while enhancing infrastructure’s resilience to environmental and social challenges [8,40]. This movement has produced diverse models of urban innovation, including eco-cities, resilient cities, smart cities, and urban living labs, all aimed at implementing new socio-technical solutions and governance approaches [7,41]. These initiatives have demonstrated the potential to create ‘pockets of transformation’ within cities, where experimental approaches to UP&D can lead to measurable improvements in sustainability relative to those in other urban areas [42].

However, these initiatives often encounter significant resistance from existing UP&D regimes, which are shaped by prescriptive land-use and infrastructure planning processes, risk-averse governance structures, and market logics prioritizing predictability and short-term returns [27,31]. This rigidity limits the flexibility for novel approaches and perpetuates path dependency, inhibiting systemic transformation [28,29].

The concepts of innovative capacity and transformative capacity offer useful frameworks for understanding how urban systems can be reconfigured to foster systemic change. Innovative capacity refers to the potential to generate and apply new ideas, technologies, and practices [32,43], while transformative capacity refers to the ability of urban governance systems and actor networks to create new, more sustainable socio-technical configurations [8]. These concepts underscore the importance of inclusive governance, empowered communities of practice, and forward-looking urban leadership in enabling successful sustainability transitions [8,10].

Our study builds on this literature by adopting a multi-scalar perspective that integrates SAFs with socio-technical transitions theory to examine the socio-institutional factors that enable or constrain innovation in UP&D [36,38]. We conceptualize the UP&D system as overlapping socio-technical and urban infrastructure systems. This system-of-systems perspective acknowledges that cities are constantly being formed, reformed, and maintained through co-evolving social and physical elements [40]. Accordingly, urban areas can transform quickly or slowly toward more or less sustainable and resilient futures depending on the system’s capacity for reflexivity, innovation, and change [11]. This approach highlights the role of agency, strategic action, and coalition-building among actors, complementing the structural focus of traditional transitions theory and providing a more nuanced understanding of how greenfield developments can serve as catalysts for systemic change.

This study investigates how greenfield developments in Australia can be leveraged to accelerate sustainability transitions and deliver enhanced resilience and livability outcomes. It addresses the following research questions:

• What aspects of the planning and development system constrain innovation in greenfield developments?
• What local conditions, planning strategies, and development mechanisms can enable radical innovation?

Our objective is to contribute to the body of literature that is seeking to integrate the MLP and SAF theoretical frameworks and to further operationalize SAF theory by developing strategic actions for building the innovation capacity within the Australian UP&D system. While it is grounded in the Australian context, our findings have broader relevance to jurisdictions facing similar urban development challenges.

2. Methods

This study employed a mixed-method design incorporating a national survey and two in-depth case studies of large-scale greenfield developments in Australia. The methodological approach was designed to capture both the system-level trends in and localized, context-specific insights into the barriers to and enablers of sustainability innovation in UP&D.

2.1. The Research Design and Rationale

The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods strengthens the robustness and credibility of this study’s findings through methodological triangulation. The national survey provided a broad overview of stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences within the Australian UP&D system. In contrast, the case studies offered detailed, contextualized accounts of how specific innovations were developed, implemented, and contested in practice. This approach aligns with the recommendations for studying complex socio-technical systems where the interplay between actors, institutions, and practices requires both breadth and depth in an analysis [44,45].

Case studies are particularly well suited to exploring the dynamic and context-dependent nature of innovation in greenfield developments. They enable the examination of contemporary phenomena within real-life settings, capturing the influence of historical, institutional, and market factors on project outcomes. Moreover, case studies facilitate theory-building by enabling researchers to test and refine theoretical concepts through empirical investigation [46].

2.2. The National Survey

An online national survey was conducted to gather data from the stakeholders involved in UP&D across Australia. The survey was delivered with assistance from the Australian urban development industry peak body, the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA). The UDIA engages with diverse professionals working in the UP&D system, such as urban planners, developers, consultants, government officials, and other professionals working within the UP&D system. The survey questions were informed by a review of the literature on sustainability transitions and innovation and refined through conversations with UDIA personnel drawing on their practical experiences in development. The survey covered themes such as innovation drivers, barriers, and enablers; the approaches to governance and regulation; and market dynamics. Further details about the survey and how it was designed and implemented are available in Quezada and Green [47].

2.3. Case Studies

Two case studies were purposively selected based on their significance as large-scale greenfield developments with differing governance models, geographic locations, and planning frameworks. UP&D processes are complex and dynamic and strongly influenced by the local context. For this reason, it was important to validate the national survey findings with a further analysis of specific development projects using in-depth case studies, developed through interview and workshop methods. Case studies are a research strategy that is commonly used to help researchers explore and understand complex issues [46].

The two case study projects, as depicted in Figure 1, were Greater Flagstone in Logan (near Brisbane) and Sydney Science Park in Penrith (Western Sydney). While the former is a much larger development than the latter, they share many similarities (e.g., being in the early stages of planning and design; being located in an identified urban growth area; the rural context requiring innovation in the urban infrastructure provision; and involving the active engagement of diverse stakeholders from across the industry). Both are greenfield sites located approximately 40 km from the nearest CBD—Greater Flagstone to the southwest of Brisbane (in the state of Queensland) and Sydney Science Park to Sydney’s west (in the state of New South Wales). These sites were chosen to represent different scales of development and governance. Greater Flagstone is 7188 hectares with a state government agency overseeing its development. In contrast, Sydney Science Park is a 287-hectare site that is being developed by a private developer. Further details of these case study sites are available in Quezada et al. [48].

Using real urban development projects as case studies enables the identification of multiple and diverse actors from across the industry who can relay their insights and experiences about the same development project. For each case study, data were captured using both semi-structured interviews and workshops that allowed for the iterative learning required to capture the complexity of the UP&D system. A key input into these data collection processes was the development of a conceptualization of the UP&D system. This conceptualization was prepared based on previous research experience and a review of the literature. The UP&D system was defined as comprising a diversity of actors and knowledge domains that interacted with the sequential stages of the UP&D process within the broader context of a variety of socio-technical influences, such as culture, politics, technology, and resources (Figure 2).

The participants of the interviews and workshops were selected by contacting the proponents of the two urban development areas and using a snowball sampling [49] technique to identify other participants familiar with these developments from a diversity of organizations across the industry. Following ethical clearance, interviews with the participants were conducted over 45–60 min sessions. The interviews focused on exploring the constraints to innovation for the relevant case study. All of the interviews were voice-recorded, transcribed, and imported into the qualitative analysis software NVivo v12 [50]. Workshop discussions took place over three to four half-day sessions, with an emphasis on the enablers of innovation. The workshops were not voice-recorded. Data were captured via the researchers’ notes and observations and participant-written notes collected at the end of the workshops.

Data collected through the interviews and workshops were analyzed using a qualitative coding procedure. A Grounded Theory [51] or inductive approach was used to develop major themes relating to the constraints and enablers of innovation in urban development. The qualitative analysis approach used a strategy of pre-coding, as described by Layder [52]. This enabled the researchers to become familiar with the interview transcripts and workshop notes and to identify potentially important segments of text before adopting an open-coding strategy to extract as many themes as possible. This approach was adopted to reduce the potential interpretive bias that researchers bring to a qualitative data analysis [52]. Themes were checked for duplication before further refinement and identification of the major categories. The themes of the enablers and constraints to innovation were consolidated across interviews and workshops and the two case studies. All of the findings were tested with a participant reference group.

2.4. Synthesis and Integration

With assistance from the participant reference group, the case study themes were then synthesized by the authors into a set of strategic actions for industry and government actors. The synthesis process involved a series of briefings and discussions with reference group members about the research findings and implications. This discussion was based on examining the linkages between the barriers and enablers and asking the reference group to reflect on their professional experiences in Australia to consider what practical strategies are needed to deliver innovation in greenfield development projects.

The research findings were analyzed by the authors and the research reference group to develop a set of five strategic actions that could be implemented to address the following research question: What local conditions and planning and development strategies can enable innovation?

3. Results

3.1. The National Survey of the Urban Development Industry

Sixty-two professionals completed the survey, with most of the respondents coming from the jurisdictions of Queensland (41%), Western Australia (32%), and Victoria (18%). A range of members participated, but most of the respondents were consultants (45%), property developers (32%), or government employees (8%) and were mostly involved in the delivery of master-planned residential and medium-density multi-unit residential developments. Of the property developers that responded, most of their developments were valued at over AUD 25 million. There was an even spread of organization sizes represented by the respondents, as defined by the number of employees in their organizations—small, with <20 employees (32%), medium, with 20–199 (34%), and large, with ≥200 (31%).

Given the sample size (N = 62), it was not possible to compare subsamples of the survey data, and therefore the analysis was restricted to frequencies and summary statistics. The following is a summary of the results, presented by key topic areas (see [48] for detailed findings).

3.1.1. Drivers of Innovation

Respondents were asked to consider the importance of a variety of exogenous and endogenous pressures driving innovation in urban development (Figure 3). Overall, the cost of infrastructure was perceived to be the most important (M = 4.08), followed by government standards and regulations (M = 3.95) and market demand for high-quality development (M = 3.94). Climate change was considered least important, but the mean rating still indicated it was moderately important (M = 2.97).

3.1.2. Innovation Constraints and Enablers

The respondents were asked to consider the extent to which certain factors might constrain or enable the implementation of innovation. Risk-averse government and utilities (M = 4.33 out of 5) was the biggest constraint, followed by restrictive regulations and planning controls (M = 4.10) and high costs (M = 3.82). In terms of enablers, the respondents rated local/state government facilitation as the most important (M = 4.13), followed by the knowledge and capability of the project team (M = 3.92).

3.1.3. The Perceived Benefits of and Motivations for Innovation

The key benefits of adopting more innovative practice identified were reductions in the cost of energy, water, and material inputs (M = 3.71 out of 5), more affordable housing (M = 3.69), and increased market competitiveness (M = 3.69). The most important motivations behind the respondent organizations implementing innovative practice were market demand (M = 3.68), support from their senior executives (M = 3.58), and gaining industry recognition (M = 3.46).

3.1.4. The Perceived Effectiveness of Policy and Regulations for Innovation

The respondents felt that government regulations and guidelines were generally limited in their effectiveness across all of the domains listed, including energy supply (M = 2 out of 5), water supply and sewage (M = 2.03), transport (M = 2.11), stormwater (M = 2.31), and urban design (M = 2.42). Offering financial incentives was considered the most beneficial approach to encouraging innovative practice in urban development (M = 4.03), followed by consumer education (M = 3.73), mandatory standards (M = 3.68), and industry-driven standards and certification (self-regulation, M = 3.53).

3.2. Findings from the Case Study Interviews and Workshops

In total, 50 professionals participated in the interviews (n = 26) and workshops (n = 24) and were directly involved in at least one of the case study areas. The professional backgrounds of the participants were diverse, spanning local and state government strategic planners and policymakers, development assessment officers, infrastructure planners and managers, property developers, and consultants. Six inter-related constraint themes (see Section 3.2.1) and seven enabling themes (Section 3.2.2) for innovation in urban development were identified.

Table 1. Example quotes representing constraints identified at the case study sites.

Theme	Example Quotes or Comments 1
Play-it-safe politics and planning	When one thing goes wrong, then local government never want to get criticized for that again, even if there was lots of good… People are risk- and criticism-averse. [Consultant]
Financial strain	It’s not just how much does it cost to build but it’s how much does it cost to maintain. [Consultant]
Complex urban governance system	Governance is the problem because it’s who decides and its multiple layers, multiple scales of who decides. [State Government Officer] …[there are] too many chances of someone saying no in the system and killing it before it gets to the ultimate decision-maker. [State Government Officer]
Ruling by standards	…what I mean to say is the development process is just a tick-the-box process that doesn’t support nor does it encourage any kind of innovation. [Developer] Regulations, it’s the nemesis of innovation. [State Government Officer]
Immature market for innovation	The system is not set up to encourage council staff or communities to push for innovation because I don’t think communities know [or] have any sense of what the next generation or the better forms of urban development could look like. [State Government Officer] [It is] generally accepted [that] the market is fat and lazy, you generally need government to push it [innovation] [Developer]
Not invented here	What happened to innovation in this country? If it is successful, it goes offshore due to no government support. [Penrith workshop] Support for entrepreneurial ideas… the psychological state is not here in Australia. In the US, failure is okay, here, it is not okay. [Logan workshop]

¹ Verbatim quotes from interviews are italicized, while non-verbatim comments from the workshops are not.

(constraints) and

Table 2. Enablers identified in the case study sites.

Theme	Example Quotes or Comments 1
Cost-breakthrough solutions	Less costly and provide an overall value proposition that overall will be cheaper. [Penrith workshop]
A new model for urban governance	Multi-stakeholder project board—who’s on the board? Developers, futurists, consultants, land authorities, council, servicing authorities. [Penrith workshop] There needs to be a collaborative platform for understanding innovation. There is no platform, and workshops are a way to set up an environment where it [innovation] can be discussed. [Logan workshop]
Innovation agency	Initiate innovation and enterprise programs... financial backing for ideas to keep start-ups in the country and in the [science] park. [Penrith workshop] Government these days is looking at establishing an entity for an innovation zone to be covered if something goes wrong. No room in Australia to make a mistake. The way to deal with this is to have a vehicle to offset the risk. [Logan workshop]
Engaged and informed stakeholders	People can go and touch and feel it, and go, oh I see this, this is actually really good. [Developer] Asking potential users what they want—use 3D modeling… interactive ways to get their input and let them know what others are saying. [Penrith workshop]
Financial incentives	Create funding that local government can use for innovation [Logan workshop] Need a special infrastructure levy [Logan workshop]
Visionary leadership	You need very smart policymakers…informed by industry and informed by people that aren’t just lobby groups. [Consultant] Visionaries within the political system, organizations, or the community that can share and build on a vision that inspires and benefits others. [Penrith workshop]
Innovation planning for long-term impact	Pricing externality benefits or deliberative planning to overcome government’s reluctance to invest in long-term value [Penrith workshop] Thinking less of a ‘master plan’ but more of having principles that a range of ‘authors’ (e.g., smart-thinkers and a range of potential end users in Penrith, young people, residents, and employees) can play around with modeling options, and the designs can be flexible to changing needs. [Penrith workshop]

¹ Verbatim quotes from interviews are italicized, while non-verbatim comments from the workshops are not.

(enablers) present supporting comments for these themes. Most of the data relating to constraints are verbatim statements, while the workshops focused on enablers, which were not recorded and therefore are paraphrased statements. Note that some interviewees still commented on the enablers of innovation, and some workshop participants discussed constraints.

3.2.1. Constraints to Innovation

Theme 1 (play-it-safe politics and planning) describes how government officers and agencies are wary of the consequences of making mistakes and community backlash if an innovation goes wrong. Theme 2 (financial strain) concerns the fiscal challenges that many councils and utilities are experiencing and how innovative options are viewed as too risky and potentially costly to manage. Theme 3 (complex urban governance system) addresses the institutional and organizational complexity of government departments overseeing urban development and infrastructure provision. Key policy and approval areas tend to be fragmented, while organizational hierarchy and lengthy approval chains pose significant and multiple risks to progressing new ideas. Theme 4 (ruling by standards) reinforces the prominent role of standards and rules, the so called ‘check-box’ approach to development assessment, which enables consistency and timely decisions but leaves little room for new solutions. Excessive focus on the technical details and standards (e.g., street widths, lot sizes, and street lighting) crowds out any discussion of the strategic challenges facing cities. Theme 5 (immature market for innovation) reflected strongly on the Australian cultural context for greenfield property development, which is largely oriented around the affordable housing market. This market segment tends not to make decisions based on future challenges (e.g., climate change) and so undervalues the benefits of innovative solutions. Most home-buyers focus on the upfront costs, “getting more bang for their buck”, and visual appeal. Finally, Theme 6 (not invented here) presents a broader perspective of Australia’s conservative attitude to back innovation and its financing. A conservative culture within Australia looks down on mistakes and shuns failure. The broader societal culture in this nation is driven by comfort, convenience, and material wealth. We lack innovation leadership and entrepreneurialism and are losing great ideas and people to countries with stronger support for innovation as a result.

3.2.2. Enablers of Innovation

Theme 1 (cost-breakthrough solutions) offers the view that for innovations to be accepted and implemented, they must be demonstrably more affordable than the status quo and deliver savings to communities and councils. Theme 2 (a new model for urban governance) reflects comments from the participants about multi-sector governance, collaboration, and risk-sharing arrangements. Theme 3 (innovation agency) relates to the views asserted by many of the participants about the importance of a quasi-governmental agency overseeing and coordinating the innovation process and underwriting the risks associated with radical innovations. Theme 4 (engaged and informed stakeholders) underscores the importance of such a body managing the processes and tools that communicate the benefits of innovation. Residents and other stakeholders need to be informed about how living in an innovative environment will add more fulfilment to their lives (e.g., time, health, wellbeing, economics, and creativity). The latest computer visualization and modeling techniques were suggested as a potential aid for this engagement. The main idea behind this theme is that successful innovation requires a shared vision that everyone has a part in creating and developing. Theme 5 (financial incentives) reflects a broadly held view that innovation in Australia needs government-based funding mechanisms and incentives. Theme 6 (visionary leadership) states that sustained investment in innovation needs broadly based political support that can transcend political cycles. Visionary leaders are needed to address elected officials, government organizations, and the community, providing a compelling case for pragmatists. Lastly, Theme 7 (innovation planning for long-term impact) describes an adaptive planning approach that guides development through defined outcomes and principles rather than predefined rules and standards.

3.3. Synthesis of the Survey and Case Study Findings

Synthesis of the findings from the national survey and case studies highlights the multi-level and field dynamics shaping innovation within the Australian UP&D system. Both the survey and case study data confirm that transformative change is constrained by entrenched regime structures, including rigid regulatory frameworks, risk-averse market logics, and institutional inertia. These barriers align with the MLP view of socio-technical regimes as stabilized configurations that resist change [53]. These findings show why actors within the regime tend to prioritize predictability, compliance, and incremental innovation, which perpetuates lock-in and path dependency [28,29].

At the same time, the participants can see past their constraints to identify conditions they believe are necessary to foster more radical innovations in greenfield developments, which align in part with the theoretical constructs of niches and SAFs. These conditions reflect the participants’ perceptions of the institutional supports and collaborative frameworks required to enable experimentation and coalition-building for sustainability innovations. SAF theory helps explain how different actors—developers, planners, government officials, and consultants—navigate contested institutional spaces, form alliances, and pursue strategic actions to either reinforce or disrupt existing field rules [36,38]. For example, the participants’ notions of enablers like ‘collaborative governance’, ‘innovation agency’, and ‘financial incentives’ are consistent with the idea of niche innovations emerging in protected institutional and market spaces.

This synthesis confirms that while there is clarity about what arrangements are needed for radical innovation in greenfield developments, significant structural and institutional barriers need to be overcome. To that end, deliberate strategic actions are essential to bridge the gap between recognizing barriers and enablers and activating greenfields to achieve tangible systemic change. Without a clear and coordinated pathway forward, industry actors risk remaining trapped in a cycle of problem diagnosis without resolution. These strategic actions can act as a bridge between the potential for niche innovations and the entrenched structures of existing regimes, creating conditions that can facilitate transition processes consistent with MLP dynamics [9] and field-level transformations [6].

3.4. Strategic Actions

A set of five interconnected strategic actions were derived for the purpose of operationalizing the findings. Figure 4 illustrates how these actions are informed by the constraints and enablers. These strategic actions were designed to address key leverage points within the UP&D system. We outline each action and describe how it aligns with the theoretical insights from both the MLP and SAF frameworks.

The first strategic action (identify and select solutions that outcompete business-as-usual (BAU) options) responds to the dominance of cost and productivity concerns within the Australian property industry. Australians pay the highest house and energy prices in the world [54,55]. It recognizes the need for sustainability innovations to deliver clear value propositions that address critical challenges such as affordable living and business productivity. This action aligns with SAF theory by emphasizing the importance of creating rules within the field that influence the posture of incumbent actors with power and construct shared understandings and competitive options that appeal to and overcome incumbent actors’ interests [36].

The second action (create participatory platforms to enable co-innovation with communities and elected officials) addresses the need for inclusive governance structures where innovation champions and coalitions can emerge. SAF theory underscores the role of institutional arenas in shaping rule-setting processes, and this action reflects the need to formalize such arenas for deliberation and consensus-building [6]. Engaging communities and political actors also facilitates niche–regime interactions as described in MLP theory, helping innovations scale beyond protected spaces.

The third action (developing a narrative and engagement campaign) focuses on building public discourse and community awareness about sustainability transitions. This action is critical for fostering socio-political legitimacy and market-readiness and empowering actors to mobilize support for innovative initiatives. It supports SAF insights on the role of framing and narrative-building in redefining field boundaries and opportunities for change [36].

The fourth action (the creation of collaborative ecosystems of firms, civil sector organizations, and government departments) emphasizes the value of coalition-building and network governance to addressing complex multi-stakeholder challenges. SAF theory highlights the strategic role of alliances in reshaping field dynamics, while MLP theory recognizes the need for niche actors to aggregate their resources and knowledge to gain influence within regimes [53], emphasizing the value of coalition-building and network governance to addressing complex multi-stakeholder challenges [53].

Finally, the fifth action (establish a quasi-governmental innovation authority) aims to institutionalize leadership and long-term support for sustainability transitions by providing governance structures, funding mechanisms, and risk management expertise. This reflects SAF theory’s emphasis on field-level rule-setting and the enforcement of a challenger culture and the MLP’s call for institutional alignment to create protected spaces that enable niche innovations to thrive and potentially reconfigure regime structures.

Collectively, these strategic actions are designed to create stable and longer-term ‘institutional space’ that supports skilled coalition-builders and empower innovation leaders and change agents to operate in a ‘safe-to-fail’ setting. This approach addresses the gaps in Australia’s current UP&D system, where such enabling environments are currently lacking. By aligning actor strategies with both field-level governance and regime dynamics, these actions offer a practical and theoretically informed pathway for accelerating sustainability transitions in greenfield urban developments.

4. Discussion

This study explored two research questions: (1) What aspects of the planning and development system constrain innovation? (2) What local conditions, planning strategies, and development mechanisms can enable innovation? Our findings confirm that entrenched regulatory frameworks, risk-averse market logics, institutional inertia, and fragmented governance structures act as key constraints on innovation within Australia’s UP&D system. These dynamics perpetuate the stability in the socio-technical regime, reinforcing path dependencies and favoring incremental over transformative innovation.

We also found that property industry actors have clear insights about how the local conditions can enable more radical innovation, including strong policy leadership, collaborative governance platforms, the presence of innovation champions, and mechanisms for capacity-building and knowledge-sharing. The five strategic actions derived from this study offer practical guidance for implementing these insights. They provide industry practitioners and policymakers with clear pathways to overcoming the barriers identified and creating enabling environments that foster collaboration, experimentation, and systemic innovation. Such actions are essential to create protected spaces where niche innovations can emerge and mature before confronting regime-level selection pressures. The findings demonstrate the need for deliberate strategic actions to overcome institutional barriers and align the interests of diverse actors within the UP&D system.

Many of the findings of this study resonate with and extend past research on the Australian UP&D system. Prior studies have consistently highlighted over-prescriptive standards in planning frameworks that constrain innovation [56], as well as the financial strain and capacity limitations faced by local governments [57,58]. Additionally, economic tensions have been noted, where new solutions in energy and water provisions are perceived as threats by incumbent service providers operating under consumption-based business models [59,60]. There is also a substantial body of literature documenting fragmented and complex urban governance as a significant barrier to advancing climate change mitigation and biodiversity strategies [61]. Our study reinforces these concerns but also contributes new insights, particularly in relation to the risk aversion among government actors. While risk aversion has been well cited in previous studies [62], our findings unpack this dynamic further, revealing that government officials often operate under significant pressure to deliver timely planning approvals and avoid decisions that might attract criticism. This creates an institutional environment where planners are incentivized to prioritize regulatory compliance and procedural certainty over facilitating innovative and potentially transformative outcomes.

From a theoretical perspective, our findings demonstrate that innovation in urban planning is often constrained by institutional inertia and regulatory complexity, aligning with the existing literature on socio-technical transitions that highlights the persistence of regime resistance [63]. However, our analysis also shows that certain actors—particularly progressive planning agencies and private sector innovators with cost-effective solutions—can leverage regulatory gaps to introduce novel urban development models. This highlights the importance of strategic action and actor agency, which are often underemphasized in the traditional socio-technical transition frameworks.

4.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study makes three key theoretical contributions to the literature on sustainability transitions. First, it extends the application of the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) by demonstrating how greenfield developments function as hybrid spaces that blur the boundaries between niche and regime dynamics. Unlike traditional MLP assumptions that niches are shielded from regime pressures, greenfield developments in Australia illustrate how innovation can occur within disrupted regime frameworks, provided that enabling conditions are in place. This finding adds nuance to MLP theory by emphasizing spatial and institutional hybridization as potential sites of transition.

Second, this study operationalizes strategic action field (SAF) theory within the UP&D context, offering a fine-grained analysis of how actors contest, negotiate, and reshape field rules. Our identification of five strategic actions provides a practical framework for understanding how actor coalitions form, how rule-setting processes are influenced, and how field stability or transformation unfolds. This enriches SAF theory by demonstrating its applicability in complex, multi-actor urban development systems.

Third, the integration of MLP and SAF theories offers a comprehensive analytical framework that bridges structural and agency-oriented perspectives. While previous studies have begun to explore the complementarity between MLP and SAF frameworks [6,38], our study is unique in applying this integrated approach to the urban development context. Specifically, we refine the understanding of how structures and agency interplay in shaping sustainability transitions within complex, multi-actor UP&D systems. By empirically identifying strategic actions grounded in the experiences of industry practitioners, we provide a framework that connects theoretical insights with actionable strategies. This integration addresses a persistent gap in the literature on transition studies concerning the interplay between structures and agency, particularly in urban development fields.

4.2. Practical Implications for Policy and Practice

These findings offer actionable insights for government and industry leaders, policymakers, planners, and landowners seeking to accelerate sustainability transitions in greenfield urban developments.

4.2.1. Establishing Innovation Ecosystems

This study underscores the need to establish robust innovation ecosystems that bring together government agencies, private sector actors, researchers, and communities. These ecosystems should be supported by dedicated innovation agencies that act as boundary organizations, brokering the relationships between diverse stakeholders and curating collaborative processes [64]. Such agencies should facilitate co-design initiatives, manage risk-sharing mechanisms, and provide long-term support for experimentation and learning.

While some of these requirements resemble the notion of urban living labs [7] or the principles of urban experimentation [65], our findings emphasize additional actions that extend beyond these frameworks. These include prioritizing cost-effectiveness to gain public support and sustain business models and the critical role of an innovation authority to curate the innovation process and maintain a rich network of actors to address the complexity of UP&D. Furthermore, the role of researchers is highlighted as another point of difference from the existing literature. Rather than serving as objective observers or embedded transitions researchers [66], we see researchers acting as core stimulators of the innovation ecosystem, building the trust and capacity for experimentation to occur.

An innovation agency, acting as a boundary organization [67] with skilled coalition-builders [38], would be central to brokering partnerships that nurture scientific expertise, community knowledge, sustainability, and policy objectives (strategic action #2). It should focus on active support for the innovation ecosystem and build the necessary capacity for change over long periods of time (strategic action #5). Drawing on the MLP [63], the agency would create critical links, trust, and learning between actors operating at the niche, regime, and landscape levels, helping to nurture actions toward faster and deeper transformations that could challenge path dependencies and lock-in effects [28,29].

For example, the innovation agency would concentrate its efforts on strategic actions such as identifying non-business-as-usual (BAU) options (strategic action #1), supporting the development of local priorities, and using system valuation approaches to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of innovations that might otherwise appear expensive when assessed through narrow cost–benefit analyses [27,68]. This requires not only a rich network and density of innovative actors but also an engaged and educated community actively seeking new solutions (strategic action #4). This effort goes beyond the typical memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between institutions to deliver technical solutions. It demands a dedicated focus on education, learning, and accessing community knowledge. The literature highlights the importance of demanding markets in promoting innovation among firms [69,70]. In this setting, investors, residents, and business stakeholders understand that novelty in urban form, services, and co-innovation practices will be prioritized over BAU approaches.

The limited participation of end users in planning processes presents a key barrier to transformative urban development. Our findings suggest that participatory planning mechanisms, such as co-design workshops and urban living labs, can enhance stakeholder engagement and foster collaborative innovation (strategic action #3). This supports arguments in the literature that participatory governance is essential to overcoming institutional lock-in [66].

Ultimately, an innovation agency appears critical for the Australian context. It would need to be an institution characterized by high trust and legitimacy, transdisciplinary research skills, and the ability to commit to the long timeframes required to build a capacity for change and drive socio-technical transitions.

4.2.2. Greenfields as Strategic Urban Innovation Zones

Designating urban innovation zones—specifically greenfield developments or precincts—as spaces for high-risk, high-reward experimentation is essential. These zones should be backed by clear policy mandates, stable funding mechanisms, and adaptive governance frameworks that allow for iterative learning and course correction. Urban innovation zones provide a focused opportunity to test and scale sustainability innovations that, if successful, can be mainstreamed into broader planning and development practices [7,65].

These zones should also be tailored to respond to local pressures. For example, cities facing heightened risks from climate-related hazards could establish urban innovation zones as part of resilience strategies. In greenfield contexts, these zones could leverage the greater flexibility in land-use planning to pursue ambitious sustainability and livability goals. The deep transformation [9] sought in responding to multiple urban sustainability challenges suggests perhaps that only selected greenfield developments with significant multi-stakeholder commitment will be able to manage the trade-off between the benefits of experimentation and the risks of cost and failure. Irrespective of the level of ambition, each zone will require accountability mechanisms to maintain an innovation ecosystem focused on long-term sustainability outcomes and prevent a regression to business-as-usual practices.

4.2.3. Fostering Collaborative Governance and Co-Innovation

Establishing participatory platforms for co-innovation with communities and elected officials is vital to ensure legitimacy, buy-in, and the integration of local knowledge (Strategic Actions #2, #3). Collaborative governance structures should enable iterative engagement, ensuring that innovation agendas align with community aspirations and generate broad-based support.

Participation should also extend to end users and stakeholders often marginalized in traditional planning processes. This fosters inclusivity and addresses the risk of urban innovation zones becoming exclusive spaces for more affluent communities.

4.2.4. Prioritizing Systemic Value and Cost-Effectiveness

Strategic actions should focus on demonstrating the systemic value of sustainability innovations, particularly in terms of their affordability and productivity (strategic actions #1 and #5). This requires a shift from traditional cost–benefit assessments to more comprehensive valuation methods that capture co-benefits, externalities, and long-term impacts [27,68].

The findings also emphasize the importance of creating a market context that demands innovation (strategic action #3). Education and engagement initiatives targeting residents, investors, and local businesses are necessary to foster a culture of innovation and enhance public understanding of the long-term benefits of sustainable urban development.

4.2.5. Strengthening Leadership and Policy Certainty

Government leadership must provide clear, ambitious policy signals and long-term certainty to incentivize private sector investment in sustainability innovations (strategic action #5). Leadership also needs to navigate the political and institutional complexities inherent in Australia’s UP&D system. The socio-institutional context is shaped by entrenched economic and market drivers typical of a neoliberal governance framework, where financial imperatives frequently overshadow sustainability objectives. Even government actors are often under pressure to prioritize economic growth agendas over longer-term innovation and sustainability outcomes.

Addressing these political and economic dynamics is crucial to fostering a governance environment that supports transformative innovation. This requires not only policy certainty but also political leadership that is willing to engage with competing interests, build cross-sector coalitions, and support experimentation, even when the outcomes are uncertain or contested [38]. Future strategies should explore mechanisms for balancing economic imperatives with social and environmental objectives, ensuring that urban innovation contributes to equitable and sustainable development. Leadership should also foster a culture of experimentation and tolerance for failure within regulatory frameworks.

Strong national and subnational leadership is critical to secure the long-term financial and institutional support required for innovation agencies and urban innovation zones. Shared funding models involving local, state, and federal governments—as well as private sector stakeholders—will be essential to sustain these initiatives.

4.2.6. Developing Collaborative Industry–Government Models

To ensure public outcomes are achieved, innovation partnerships must embrace transparency and knowledge-sharing, including the open disclosure of both successful and unsuccessful experiments (strategic actions #4 and #5). This will require a cultural shift for both government and industry stakeholders, as many may be unaccustomed to sharing negative outcomes. Collaborative contracting models that move away from traditional, rigid tendering processes can facilitate more innovative approaches [71,72].

4.2.7. Addressing Australia’s Innovation Culture

This study also highlights the unique, perhaps idiosyncratic issues characteristic of Australia’s culture and approach to innovation. Australia’s perceived immature innovation market, under-resourced R&D ecosystems, and historical reliance on incremental rather than transformative change suggest the need for more targeted interventions. Strategic action should include fostering a national culture that values innovation, moving beyond the perception that leadership in sustainability innovation belongs exclusively to economies in Europe, East Asia, or North America [73].

Efforts to mature Australia’s innovation landscape in UP&D will require investment in long-term collaboration mechanisms [74], the development of innovation agencies with legitimacy and trust, and strategic actions to address the capacity limitations across planning and development sectors. The creation of urban innovation zones represents a critical mechanism for addressing these challenges, offering protected spaces for experimentation where actors can build new capacities and demonstrate their systemic functionality before their broader application.

4.3. Limitations

This research presents several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, this study did not explicitly include ‘end users’ such as home-buyers or residents, focusing instead on the system-level actors involved in the administration and delivery of UP&D. While this focus provided valuable insights into the institutional and governance dimensions of innovation in the UP&D system, it limited the comprehensiveness of our findings regarding user-driven dynamics. Future research should incorporate end user perspectives to develop a more holistic understanding of how innovation is experienced and adopted within urban communities.

Second, the survey sample size (N = 62) restricts the ability to conduct an in-depth analysis of the variation across different actor groups. Nevertheless, the survey included a diverse range of industry professionals across regions and sectors, and these findings were triangulated with qualitative data from case studies to strengthen their robustness. Despite these efforts, the issue of limited representativeness and generalizability remains a concern, particularly in relation to broader claims about the Australian UP&D system.

Third, the case study focus on greenfield developments may limit the applicability of the findings to other urban contexts, such as brownfield redevelopment or urban renewal projects. These contexts involve distinct regulatory frameworks, stakeholder dynamics, and socio-technical challenges that were not addressed in this research. We recommend that future studies explore how the innovation dynamics differ across varying urban development settings.

4.4. New Challenges and Further Research

4.4.1. Addressing Urban Innovation Divides and Equity

As urban innovation zones and experimentation initiatives scale up, there is a risk of deepening the disparities between cities. Some cities are better positioned to attract talent, investment, and resources, which could exacerbate inequalities and lead to an uneven innovation capacity. This raises important questions about equity and social sustainability in the context of urban innovation. Research is needed to understand how to support a balanced innovation capacity across different cities and ensure that the benefits of innovation are distributed equitably. Without deliberate strategies, urban innovation may primarily serve affluent populations or reinforce existing social divides [75,76].

4.4.2. Governance Challenges in Neoliberal Contexts

Governing urban innovations within a neoliberal market economy presents challenges that require further examination. The dominance of profit motives raises concerns about whether social equity can be adequately addressed, particularly if industry-led innovations predominate. Future research should explore governance frameworks that balance public interests with private sector efficiency. This includes investigating the role of not-for-profits, social enterprises, and public innovation agencies in delivering equitable outcomes within urban innovation zones.

4.4.3. Exploring Public–Private Hybrid Governance Models

The present research identified a public–private hybrid governance approach, where government maintains a central role in safeguarding public policy objectives, while private sector actors bring agility and entrepreneurial methods to innovation processes. Future research should test the effectiveness of such hybrid models, including their ability to foster cross-sector collaboration, build trust, and deliver transformative outcomes. Attention will also be required to develop collaborative models that overcome probity concerns or perceived conflicts of interest.

4.4.4. Clarifying the Role and Design of Urban Innovation Zones and ULLs

Urban living labs (ULLs) and urban innovation zones (UIZs) are increasingly positioned as arenas for experimentation, social learning, and governance innovation [42]. However, further clarity is needed on how best to design and manage these initiatives for long-term impacts. Key areas for further research include the governance arrangements, funding mechanisms, risk-sharing protocols, and accountability frameworks that can enable sustained collaboration, learning, and the broader dissemination of outcomes.

4.4.5. Building Innovation Pipelines

While UIZs and ULLs provide critical spaces for experimentation, they should be integrated into broader innovation pipelines that include other mechanisms, such as incubators, accelerators, and tactical urbanism initiatives [77,78]. Future research should explore how these different approaches can be combined to create continuous pathways for developing, testing, and scaling urban innovations.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the barriers to and enablers of innovation in Australia’s urban planning and development (UP&D) system, focusing on greenfield developments as strategic opportunities for sustainability transitions. Drawing on a mixed-method approach that combined a national survey with in-depth case studies, this research provided nuanced insights into how institutional structures, regulatory frameworks, and actor dynamics influence the capacity for transformative urban innovation.

Our findings reveal that institutional inertia, fragmented governance, and risk-averse planning cultures are significant barriers to innovation. However, this study also identifies clear pathways for overcoming these barriers through strategic actions such as fostering collaborative governance, establishing urban innovation zones, and supporting cross-sector partnerships. By integrating transitions theory with the strategic action field framework, this research offers a comprehensive lens for understanding how actors navigate complex socio-technical systems to drive systemic change. It demonstrates urban greenfield innovation zones as underexplored and yet critical contexts for deep sustainability transitions due to their ability to serve as hybrid zones encouraging both regime interventions and experimental niches.

This study makes three key contributions to operationalizing transitions in UP&D systems. First, it highlights the critical role of place-based innovation ecosystems, facilitated by dedicated innovation agencies, in supporting sustained experimentation and learning. Second, it underscores the need for adaptive policy environments and participatory governance models to accelerate transformative innovation in UP&D systems. Third, it calls for the recalibration of Australia’s innovation culture, advocating for stronger leadership, policy certainty, and investment in innovation capacity.

While focused on the Australian context, these findings have broader relevance for other jurisdictions facing similar regulatory and market dynamics. This research underscores the importance of strategic interventions that align local innovation initiatives with broader sustainability transitions, offering practical guidance for policymakers, planners, and industry stakeholders.

Future research should explore how these strategic actions can be operationalized in diverse urban contexts, including brownfield redevelopment and urban renewal projects. Additionally, further empirical work is needed to evaluate the long-term impacts of urban innovation zones and hybrid governance models on sustainability outcomes.

In conclusion, unlocking the transformative potential of UP&D requires coordinated action across multiple levels of governance, sectors, and communities. This study provides a foundation for advancing such efforts, contributing to the broader agenda of fostering sustainable, resilient, and livable urban futures.