This paper explains and examines the ongoing transformation of Shanghai’s main waterfronts in the context of a new eco-network, informed by sustainability transitions scholarship (Markard et al., 2012) and additional insights from ecological civilization philosophies (Hansen et al., 2018). The paper focuses on the Direct Controlled Municipality ¹ of Shanghai, because this region has an exemplary role within China in terms of testing and implementing new policies. Many city leaders see Shanghai as inspiring model, and gateway to the world with access to new ideas.

China’s extremely rapid shift to urbanization this century (Hsing, 2010) resulted in prosperity and high living standards for many, but also brought collateral damage, including serious environmental pollution, declining available land and resources, and socio-economic discrepancies (Brown, 1995; Li and Shapiro, 2020; Zhao et al., 2006). Since the beginning of this century, China’s policies gradually focused on the new principle of a Green Economy (Linster and Yang, 2018), which essentially turns away from the (western) idea of industrialization. Since it’s eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006-2010), the People’s Republic of China has committed itself to achieving a Green Economy, aimed at increasing the use of renewable energy sources, drastically reducing carbon emissions, and increasing green coverage of lands. In the twelfth Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) additional targets were added, including reversing ecological deterioration and enhancing environmental regulatory institutions. In March 2014 China declared a “war on pollution” ² and started to introduce multiple green policies. China’s thirteenth Five-Year Plan (2016-2020) ³ continued the lines of the previous two plans and additionally emphasized ecological restoration and protection. This year, on March 11, 2021, China’s National People’s Congress voted to pass the resolution on the fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) and the 2035 long-term goal outline. ⁴ This plan set 18% reduction of CO₂ emissions and 13.5% of energy-intensity reduction as goals for the coming 5 years. Previous Five-Year Plans showed a trend of largely over-achieving previous set goals, and according to some observers this will likely happen again. ⁵

China is demonstrating its intentions to promote Sustainable Development Goals (UN Habitat, 2015). A key driver in this aspiration is to strive to realize an ecological civilization by 2030 (Hansen et al., 2018). Ecological civilization (生态文明) can be defined as “a dynamic equilibrium state where humans and nature interact and function harmoniously” (Frazier et al., 2019). It is a socio-technical experiment. Although some scholars claim that ecological civilization originates from the western discourses on ecological modernization (Zhang et al., 2007), it has deep roots in Marxism and the potential to challenge and even replace global capitalism (Pan, 2006; Gare, 2020). It has received skeptical reactions from several international observers (Wang et al., 2014; Hansen and Liu, 2017; Wang-Kaeding, 2018). The concept of ecological civilization has been gradually integrated in the policies of the Chinese Communist Party since the 17th National Party Congress in October 2007, when it became a national strategy, as declared by General Secretary Hu ⁶ : “Towards a new era of ecological civilization to realize the greatness of the Chinese Nation,” and “ecological civilization is the key to realize the great renaissance.” In 2012, ecological civilization was included in the Party’s constitution. Five years later, during the 19th Party Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized the need to speed up realizing an ecological civilization and a more balanced model of economic growth. This transition from an industrial civilization to an ecological civilization contains three dimensions that need to be brought into harmony, according to the Communist Party’s constitution: environmental, economic, and social. The elaboration of this vision and policy is a paradigm shift to a new planning approach, a journey of exploration and finding new balances, especially balances between rigid control and flexible adaptation (Xu et al., 2017; Chen and Du, 2018).

Ecological civilization calls for new balances between top-down and bottom-up governance approaches, by exploring public private partnerships and new forms of participation, as mentioned in the final chapter of Shanghai’s Master Plan (2017-2035), in short “Shanghai 2035” (SPLRA, 2018a). To supplement this master plan ecological protection (red) lines have been introduced, i.e., zones with building limitations (see Figure 1A), to guide and control land use planning (Jin, 2020) and ecological protection around existing and planned “ecological land” (Guo, 2018). This is still in an elementary phase and during the current fourteenth Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) period it will become clear how this will work out in practice. Hopefully these promising expectations can be realized, in stark contrast to a previously proposed green belt in the master plan of 1999 that was completely overrun by urban use over a decade ago (Den Hartog, 2010).

Most wetlands are located along rivers or in river deltas. They provide directly or indirectly almost all of the world’s supply of freshwater (UN Climate Change News, 2018). Approximately 40% of the world’s population lives in deltas. Metropolitan regions, such as the Yangtze River Delta, the Pearl River Delta, the New York metropolitan area, Greater London, the Randstad Holland, Saigon, St. Petersburg and many others, were built on wetlands and swamps. Due to their strategic location, deltas are the location of complex land use conflicts: urbanization, infrastructures, ports, wetlands, and fertile agricultural lands compete for dominance. During last 3 decades the urbanization rate and construction of new urban areas accelerated dramatically, especially in the world’s new and rising economies. China is, without doubt, frontrunner in this. As illustrated in the case studies in this paper, in the context of urbanizing deltas, wetlands often loose out. Yet wetlands are crucial ecosystems: about 40% of all plant and animal species live and breed here, and “more than 25% of all wetlands plants and animals are at risk of extinction” (UN Climate Change News, 2018).

Land reclamation, groundwater-level lowering, and other urban influences have diminished wetlands worldwide. The world’s wetlands are disappearing three times faster than forests; nearly 35% of all wetlands were lost between 1970 and 2015 (UN Climate Change News, 2018). Since 2000, this process has been accelerating. Worldwide, policy provisions and decision-makers undervalue wetlands according to a report by the global Wetland Convention (UN Climate Change News, 2018); and there is a lack of urban wetland management and policy guidance. Usually there are tensions between conservation and development. However, wetlands have a range of important ecosystem services (Danley and Widmark, 2016), such as rainwater storage or sponge capacities, storm surge protection (Moeller et al., 2014), water purification, carbon sequestration (Sutton-Grier and Howard, 2018), biodiversity conservation, but limited options for urban recreation (limited to protect the wetlands).

Aside from some inland metropolises, such as Chongqing, Chengdu, and Wuhan, most of China’s urbanization boomed in a zone of approximately 100 km along its coastline, with extremely high concentrations in the three main delta areas: the Pearl River Delta, the Bohai Rim (Tianjin and Beijing), and the Yangtze River Delta. This rapid growth brought a new urban lifestyle, and improvements in the quality of life for millions. It also brought new problems, such as air pollution, water quality problems, and ecological degradation.

Since the 1950’s more than half of China’s coastal wetlands disappeared, 53% of temperate coastal ecosystems, 73% of mangroves and 80% of near-shore coral reefs vanished, according to research by China’s State Forestry Administration, Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, and the Paulson Institute, ⁷ mainly because “huge economic returns from land reclamation have prompted local governments to ‘bypass’ regulations issued by the central government” (Larson, 2015). Sea reclamation is a relatively quick ⁸ and cheap way to get more land and profits. Another reason is competing policies, e.g., local authorities are required to safeguard food supply by maintaining a minimum amount of arable land, ⁹ consequently allowing wetlands—which are often classified as wasteland (Li, 2019)—to be cultivated for farming.

The concept of protecting nature by law is relatively new in China. China’s first nature reserve was established in 1990 in Shanghai; consequently in this same city public awareness about environmental issues started to increase gradually (Zhao et al., 2006). This pioneering role of Shanghai will be explored further with help of theoretical framing and case studies in the next sections, to examine the achievements and hurdles in Shanghai’s ongoing journey towards an ecological civilization.

This research aims to test how sustainability transitions “thinking” (see Sustainability Transitions and Experiments) can be applied in a useful way in the context of Shanghai, with additional insights from ecological civilization “thinking.” This paper critically assesses how Shanghai seeks to implement large-scale ecological improvements along its interface between land and water, in former port areas and along the continuously shifting coastline, in the context of extreme urbanization pressure. How is Shanghai dealing with the expectation of a sustainable green transition, and what can we learn from this? How is the city seeking to improve the balance between wetland protection, urban development, and climate change adaptation?

The cases (Figure 2) are located along Shanghai’s main waterfronts and illustrate conflicts between urban development pressure and ecological values. The first case (Huangpu River Waterfront as Main Stage for Ecological Civilization) is the Huangpu River’s waterfront transformation in the central city, where former port-related industries make place for a new service-oriented economy (Den Hartog, 2021). The second case (Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City) deals with wetland development that conflicts with Lingang New Harbour City and relocated port areas on large-scale land reclamations along Pudong District’s coastline. The third case (Chongming Eco-Island) deals with speculative peri-urban new town developments along the edge of Chongming Eco-Island located in the Yangtze River estuary. All three cases form crucial elements in an engineered new eco-network (Figure 1B; see A Green Eco-Network as Socio-Technical Experiment to Support the Transformation of Shanghai into an Ecological Civilization).

Drawing on insights from scholarship on sustainability transitions and additional insight from ecological civilization (as a National socio-technical experiment), this paper examines how planning ambitions are translated into local realities on the ground, during their planning and implementation process, and afterwards. In the field of sustainability transitions, scholars investigate major shifts toward sustainable socio-technical systems of production and consumption (Markard et al., 2012). Following the main conceptualization of sustainability transitions, which predominantly originate from North- and Western European countries with strong welfare state traditions, some overarching patterns can be identified (Sengers et al., 2016; Kivimaa et al., 2017; Weiland et al., 2017), which are translated into comprehensive lessons on how urbanization processes can be guided towards more sustainable pathways to create attractive and functional new (urban) environments. For this paper, three core concepts from this body of theory are used to frame the empirical analysis and argumentation: 1) expectations, 2) socio-technical experimentation and 3) sustainable innovation journey.

The concept of “expectations” is often used in the field of sustainability transitions to explore how actors use appealing visions of a sustainable future in their (urban) development projects. These expectations can be defined as “statements about the future that circulate” (Van Lente, 2012). This idea of circulation is important, because expectations are “performative” by helping to create a new future reality by coordinating roles and activities amongst actors (Konrad, 2006) and by legitimizing certain investments (Borup et al., 2006). Hence expectations should be robust (shared by multiple actors), specific, and of high-quality (Schot and Geels, 2008).

To translate these expectations into realities on the ground, actors need to participate in a process of “socio-technical experimentation” (Evans et al., 2016). The expected creative and innovative solutions are tested and developed in real-life settings or urban labs. ¹⁰ While testing, a wide variety of societal stakeholders are involved. There are also other external influences that can define the outcome. Unlike experimentation in the natural sciences—that usually takes place under strictly controlled conditions, aimed to find objective certainties—experimentation in the field of sustainability transitions is an open-ended process. Consequently, scholars talk about “socio-technical experiments,” which are an: “inclusive, practice-based and challenge-led initiative, designed to promote system innovation through social learning under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity” (Sengers et al., 2016). Experiments are only meaningful if involved actors are willing to engage and foster social learning, and are open to system innovation when prioritizing their set sustainability goals (Loorbach, 2007).

Socio-technical experimentation in the urban environment is accompanied by an open-ended unfolding innovation journey (Van de Ven et al., 1999), in particular a “sustainable innovation journey” (Geels et al., 2008), full of uncertainty (Garud et al., 2014). In the case studies in this paper of this paper a narrative perspective is used to describe these journeys.

In Chinese urban planning and design we can distinguish three types of experiments:

(1) “Pilot-projects” aimed to (re)formulate relevant policies (e.g. a “low-carbon pilot”; Den Hartog et al., 2018);

The concepts of sustainable development and sustainability follow the definition of The Brundtland Report, which states: ”Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987).

Empirical evidence for this research is based on site observations, document analyses, and fieldwork by the author. A foundation for data collection was laid during fieldwork with students at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics as part of the authors’ course “city and environment,” between 2015 and 2019. During thirty site visits there were short conversations with local people, including farmers, and more in-depth conversations with key-stakeholders, including local officials, entrepreneurs, nature conservation specialists, and urban planners. During fieldwork, design studios and workshops at Tongji University there were more detailed investigations for all three cases (Huangpu River Waterfront as Main Stage for Ecological Civilization, Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City and Chongming Eco-Island). Desktop research was carried out to review sustainability transitions and ecological civilization literature, and relevant planning documents at the municipal and national level (when needed with translation and interpretation). The author co-organized and participated in knowledge exchange projects in cooperation with various universities in Shanghai and abroad. ¹²

The study has some limitations. Although translation was continuously available, the interpretation may be viewed differently in some situations. In the Chinese context, access to reliable numerical data can be difficult. Hence a qualitative research approach has been used in this study.

The origin of Shanghai is inseparable from its location beside the water. ¹³ An efficient network of waterways (Ball, 2017; King, 1911) shaped the spatial and economic development of the Yangtze River Delta. Shanghai’s waterfronts can be seen as a Frontier where conflicts in land use manifest between land reclamation, urban use, industrial use, agricultural use, and natural conservation. Shanghai’s location on the estuary brought prosperity, especially as a result of port activity. It also brought exposure and vulnerabilities: scarcity of fertile lands (Brown, 1995), increasing flood-risk (Balica et al., 2012; Hanson et al., 2011; Ke, 2014; Quan, 2014), and endangered wetlands (Wang, 2012; Li et al., 2020).

Along the coastline there has always been a strip of wetlands that grew by a natural process of sedimentation. This process of an eastward shifting coastline largely created the territory of Shanghai. Especially since the 1950s, this process has been accelerated by means of breakwaters and land reclamation. Under Mao’s leadership, there was a shift toward technocratic engineering: “Man must conquer nature” (Shapiro, 2001). Natural capital and landscape values were neglected. Moreover, urban planning practices were principally based on a tabula rasa approach, which largely ignores existing natural and cultural-historical values. Many natural waterways in this region were transformed into canals, while others were dammed or filled in completely. Supported by the new principles of the socialist market economy, financial motivations (Harvey, 2005) began to dominate planning and land-use practice, often with additional collateral damage for ecosystems and quality of life for residents (e.g. various forms of pollution, resettlement). Increasing land scarcity forced Shanghai to create new land through land reclamation.

Besides changes in sedimentation due to a decrease in discharge after construction of the Three Gorges Dam in 2003 (Yang et al., 2005), the wetlands along Shanghai’s coastline became increasingly under threat by land reclamation. Approximately 40% of Shanghai’s estuarine wetlands have been lost since 1980 due to land reclamation, totaling 816.6 km² between 1974 and 2018 (Li et al., 2020). The main uses of the reclaimed lands have been agriculture and urban expansion—planned new town construction on Chongming Island (see Chongming Eco-Island), and Lingang New Harbor City (see Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City), Pudong International Airport, tap water storage areas, recreation (golf), and port relocation (from the Huangpu River to along the coastline).

A decade ago scientists warned that Shanghai faced a serious risk for a “once in a 100 years flood,” with serious consequences, ¹⁴ and possible economic impacts far beyond the city (Balica et al., 2012; Hanson et al., 2011; Ke, 2014; Quan, 2014). Since then substantial flood protection measures have been implemented along the Huangpu River, in the form of 7-m high retaining walls. Also, in the Pudong District, coastal dikes have been reinforced, and make Shanghai—except Chongming Island—better prepared for flood risk compared to some other financial centers (Xian et al., 2018; IPCC, 2019).

These efforts have been convincingly combined with the regeneration of polluted industrial waterfronts and construction of beautiful manicured public spaces (Den Hartog, 2019). However, the ‘hard’ technocratic solutions with flood prevention infrastructure (Figure 3) constitute barriers for ecological development, e.g., concrete embankments do not provide nesting opportunities for fish, birds, and other species and will need to be addressed (Gan et al., 2018).

Along the coastline of Nanhui (see Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City), many wetlands (including salt marshes, mud flats and portions of the estuary water body) have been diked—constructed at 2 m depth below the minimum low-tide level—to speed up siltation reclamation for urban purposes (Tian et al., 2015) instead of benefitting from the storm surge protection capacities of wetlands (Moeller et al., 2014)—and converted into aquaculture farming or agriculture, which adds to flood risk (Cui et al., 2015). To compensate for the collateral damage of extreme rapid urbanization, Shanghai has been searching for ways to protect existing wetlands and stimulate the development of new wetlands, which currently looks like more of an ecological engineering effort than ecological restoration, as will be described in the next sections.

The “statements about the future” (Van Lente, 2012) regarding the eco-network in Shanghai’s current master plan are practice-based and challenge-led, and steered by ecological civilization in an attempt to balance environmental, economic, and social aspects. These statements are certainly robust–because state-led, specific, and of high quality (Schot and Geels, 2008). The promises and content of Shanghai 2035 showcases the absorption of international knowledge and practices, and even has the ambition to surpass other global cities in terms of speed, and scale, and quality. The new Huangpu waterfronts are breathtaking. It is remarkable that they were realized in such a short timespan. In addition, the amount of urban greening in the city as a whole, with green buffers and new coastal wetland, all integrated into a new eco-network, largely already under construction, is unprecedented.

This is impressive but distracts from substantive necessary quality and long-term goals. The cases on Chongming (Section Chongming Eco-Island), and along the Huangpu River in downtown Shanghai (Section Huangpu River Waterfront as Main Stage for Ecological Civilization), are primarily aimed at improving the (public) image and status, to attracting (foreign) investment, and to accommodate a selective upper middle class with a comfortable living environment (Den Hartog, 2019). This is also a form of environmental injustice and contradicts the principles of an ecological civilization (Pan, 2006). For example, relocation of polluting industries might be good for downtown citizens, but causes conflicts on the new locations of these still polluting industries.

In the Global North, the key role in sustainability transitions shifts from the national governments toward local governments, especially cities (Sengers et al., 2016). Even in a strongly centrally controlled country as China local governments play a decisive role—in the case of Shanghai even on district level as we found in the case studies—and in particular the translation and communication into everyday practice and usages by local people is decisive.

According to Evans et al. (2016) “urban experimentation” could become a new mode of governance that turns cities into laboratories for the future, especially in the context of welfare states that are increasingly under pressure, and “decreasing possibilities of national state actors to shape sustainability transitions” (Sengers et al., 2016). In the European centered discourse Karvonen (2016) claims that this type of experimentation could supplement or even replace traditional urban planning approaches. Karvonen (2016)explains that in the Global North local authorities frequently use it to mask a lack of funding, or to suggest public-private partnerships. In short, it often represents the erosion of the role and responsibilities of the state, by increasingly outsourcing expertise to citizens and non-Government stakeholders.

Yet in the case of Shanghai this is absolutely the opposite due to a very different socio-political setting. In the People’s Republic of China the state uses experimental pilot projects and demonstration zones to set standards and guidelines. The pilot-projects and demonstration zones as described in this paper are socio-technical experiments, but differ from urban labs and experiments, in scale, timeframe, and because far fewer stakeholders participate directly in these state-led processes. This makes their innovation journeys less inclusive. The terms “pilot-project” and “demonstration zone” suggest a certain degree of control of the experiment aimed to prevent failure, opposed to the term “urban lab.” This makes pilot-projects and demonstration zones different from the definition in Section Sustainability Transitions and Experiments, because experiments do not guarantee success; they can fail (Garud et al., 2014; Sengers et al., 2016). Failure includes a learning factor.

Limiting participation to a select group of stakeholders also excludes feedback as a possible enabler for learning, e.g., as we saw in Section Chongming Eco-Island (Xie et al., 2020). Yet this means that the implementation speed of pilot-projects and demonstration zones can be accelerated, also because of state ownership and mandate over land and resources. Consequently the state-led approach in Shanghai (China) can be more radical and large-scale. This makes the design and implementation of pilot-projects and demonstration zones less uncertain (Garud et al., 2014) and less open-ended as an unfolding sustainable innovation journey (Van de Ven et al., 1999). Denying learning potential is opposed to an adaptive management approach and a hurdle for system innovation.

In the sustainability transitions discourse, experimental approaches and urban labs are expected to lead to innovative, integrated, and inclusive policies and solutions. This can be more easily achieved if sustainability learning is co-created and shared. Coercive environmentalism is certainly no guarantee for successful sustainable solutions (Li and Shapiro, 2020). Actually public participation and consultation were included in China’s constitution during Mao’s reign, but neglected afterwards. Participation needs to be reprioritized again, including in China’s environmental policymaking, according to Li and Shapiro (2020). As indicated in Section Toward an Ecological Civilization, ecological civilization calls for new balances between top-down and bottom-up governance approaches and new forms of participation, which is underlined in Shanghai 2035, but is still in an elementary phase in practice. Consultation and transparency are essential to realize a true ecological civilization. Feedback from civil society will improve the outcomes from pilot-projects and demonstration projects, and will likely make policies more effective and sustainable. Yet, this is less likely under the current prevailing Chinese system of governance, as can be seen in the urban regeneration processes along the Huangpu River that lack an inclusive approach (Li and Zhong, 2020; Den Hartog, 2021).

This complexity underscores that a true ecological civilization involves an innovation journey of gradual adjustment and understanding, which cannot be implemented top-down at once, but needs to be more inclusive with a wide variety of societal stakeholders, e.g., such as happened at the initiative of the WWF on Chongming Eco-Island (see Chongming Eco-Island) and the use of incentives to stimulate grassroots experiments with eco-farmers (Den Hartog et al., 2018).

To translate expectations into realities on the ground these expectations need shared understanding, including agreed definitions of key concepts, to prevent problems as occurred in Nanhui (Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City) and Long Island (Chongming Eco-Island) where the appreciation and evaluation of ecological assets such as wetlands differed amongst various stakeholders. During fieldwork it became clear that terms like “green” and “ecology” are primarily used for making a place visually attractive instead of to increase biodiversity. Policy terms as “beautification” and “harmonization” create high expectations, but may not be realized in daily-life if their intended meaning is not robust (shared by all actors) and not specific (Schot and Geels, 2008). There is a worrying discrepancy in the evaluation of ecosystem services and the daily-life use and protection of wetlands. Therefore a main concern is to acknowledge these ecosystem services. To build shared expectation, the first recommendation is to use widely understood definitions, supported by local leaders and well informed by scientists (e.g. universities and nature conservation organizations) and to communicate this understanding clearly with all stakeholders to guide the innovation journey toward urban sustainability and ecological civilization (recommendation 1).

A co-created shared vision is essential to realize a sustainable innovation journey (Geels et al., 2008) in the long run. Also in line with the ecological civilization philosophy and participation traditions (Li and Shapiro, 2020), new ways of involving citizens in State-led processes need to be explored, to co-create a shared vision for the future, and by working with communities to better understand their needs and aspirations (recommendation 2).

The experimental new cities Lingang (Nanhui Coastal Wetland Reserve and Lingang New Harbor City) and Dongtan (Chongming Eco-Island), as well as the commercial development on Long Island (Chongming Eco-Island), are all constructed on exposed and vulnerable locations, in conflict with existing ecological values (Cui et al., 2015), and subject to flood risk (Wang et al., 2015). Additionally all three mentioned locations have problems with attracting inhabitants because of their remote locations and disturbing speculative ownership—most building are used as investment objects, especially as second houses by new middle-class families in Shanghai–, resulting in desolate communities and a waste of resources. ²² This conflicts sharply with the international accepted definition of sustainability (United Nations, 1987) and also with the idea of harmonious interaction with nature as in ecological civilization. It is recommended that clear policy guidelines are developed to guide property development to ensure public safety and sustainability including wetland protection (recommendation 3).

A sustainable innovation journey needs to be developed through a joint experimental learning approach—e.g., by approaching wetlands as valuable asset with ecosystem services—to be able to effectively protect the remaining wetlands. If an experiment is co-defined as being inclusive and “designed to promote system innovation through social learning” (Sengers et al., 2016) it is essential to involve more actors who are willing to engage and to foster social learning (Loorbach, 2007), including farmers, fishermen, and users in daily life (recommendation 4).

In China, local governments generally have a decisive executive role, while the higher levels of government (provincial and national) have more of a policy-prescribing and supervisory role. Due to various reasons (e.g., lack of experience, time pressure, mismanagement) sometimes things go wrong at local executive level. To prevent this supervision is essential during all stages, and beyond (municipal) planning boundaries (recommendation 5)—e.g., in the case of Long Island (Chongming Eco-Island) a supervising team was formed after the damage was done, because the responsible officials could not and did not want to exert influence on the other sides of the municipal and provincial border line.

China, with Shanghai ahead, is shifting from a production economy towards an urban consumption society. During the innovation journey of trial and error, there is a search for a harmonious balance between wetland protection, urban development (including economic aspects, social aspects, etcetera), and climate change adaptation. At the moment it is too early to draw conclusions on the functioning of the new ecological corridors, since only some of them have been implemented so far. Ecological civilization has an anthropocentric emphasis, which is understandable in the context of extreme high population density and the desire for economic catch-up. But to be fully sustainable, eco-friendly and effective in reducing risks (Greenpeace East Asia, 2021) caused by climate change and to restore ecosystems (UN Environment, 2019), there is an urgent need to step beyond this anthropocentric approach (recommendation 6).

Another recommendation is to recognize the reality of uncertainty and ambiguity during the innovation journey of experimentation, to create conditions and opportunities for deliberate social learning and policy adjustments, and correct and steer the project at an earlier stage with creative planning and decision-making processes that are more experimental in nature (recommendation 7).

More thoughtful and better-prepared experiments are urgently needed to further establish Shanghai as a world-leading lab for sustainable urban planning and design, and to fulfill the sustainability transition journey toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (UN Habitat, 2015) and also the goals of an ecological civilization. Shanghai’s journey differs from established cities in the Global North, ²³ and needs to deal with a different audience, with a different background, experience and life-style. Consequently there are other priorities and expectations. The innovation journey towards an ecological civilization will have significant impact on daily life in China, and far beyond. The expectations as described in the current master plan span till 2035, thus many unforeseen changes will occur. Hence it remains a journey full of uncertainty.