Inception report - Innovative financing schemes in European cities

As public funding sources are becoming increasingly constrained particularly following the 2008 global financial crisis, cities can no longer rely solely on traditional funding channels, such as loans and mortgages from banks or grants and subsidies form national governments or the EU to finance their ambitious urban development projects (Ulpiani et al., 2023; UN, 2009). Moreover, nowadays EU cities are facing complex, multifactorial socioeconomic challenges, which require significant investments. These challenges include lack of affordable housing, transportation systems dominated by privately-owned fossil fuel vehicles, the need for inclusive and accessible social services (education, health and employment), demographic shifts marked by an ageing population leading to population declines in over half of EU cities, social division, environmental degradation, and the pressing urgency of climate action (JRC, 2019). To address these complex challenges and build urban resilience, cities are increasingly looking into IFSs, which offer the flexibility and resourcefulness needed to navigate the multifaceted demands of modern urban development and sustainability goals.

The concept of IFS lacks a universally accepted and precise definition, and the available definitions differ from one another. In the framework of the EU Cohesion Policy and its urban dimension, the UIA Knowledge Management Strategy[2] refers to IFS as "schemes supporting the distribution of rewards following a contest (such as prizes, vouchers or grants) to the benefit of third parties (individuals or organisations) that are not part of the project partnership". Another definition describes them as "non-traditional ways of raising funds and facilitating investments by mixing different sources (own funds, public and private funds) or engaging different partners (e.g., citizens, private sector)" (FEDARENE, 2022).

Nonetheless, while the specific wording may differ in these definitions and some IFSs may resemble some traditional funding schemes (e.g. loans), IFSs are considered innovative because they mark a breaking point in the finance sector with traditional sources of funding (Interreg ForHeritage, 2021) and share some or all key principles summarised as follows (EIB, 2016):

• Revolving nature: Repaid funds can be reused, fostering a cycle of reinvestment.
• Financial viability: They are suitable for projects that generate income or savings, enabling repayment of the support provided.
• Co-investment: They are designed to attract co-investment, including from private sources, thereby increasing available funds.
• Market development: They can contribute to the development of markets by supporting supply-side initiatives.
• They can be combined with other sources of fundings, some more traditional such as grants, debt and equity (EPRS, 2019; Interreg ForHeritage, 2021)

These common elements highlight the innovative nature of IFSs, emphasising their ability to blend different funding sources, leverage partnerships, and employ unconventional distribution methods to achieve sustainable financing for urban development projects.

In the EU context, this new approach to financing sustainable urban development projects can be summarised by four key characteristics (EIB, 2016; The Global Fund, 2018):

Scalability and replicability: These schemes should enable leveraging more funds than traditional schemes, notably by lowering risks via their multi-stakeholders’ approach and be easily replicable across different EU contexts.

1. Complementarity: They can be used alongside other EU funding sources, such as grants, without complicating processes.
2. Additionality: They are used to fill gaps in traditional EU funding schemes.
3. Sustainability: These schemes finance projects with the intention of not only achieving long-term operation and financial sustainability, but also to remain as a self-sustaining viable funding source. This will allow moving away from a grant-only approach and adopting a more entrepreneurial mindset.

To embrace the diversity of IFSs and their potential in co-financing or funding innovative and sustainable urban development projects that address urban challenges, this study will define IFS as:

As established in the introduction, IFSs became more prominent in the European urban context particularly through the framework of EU Cohesion policy with the introduction of financial instruments. Financial Instruments, or, hereafter Fis, are a form of support delivered via a structure through which financial products are provided to final recipients (European Union law, 2021[3]). They abide by the principles mentioned previously and have progressively evolved to address the complex, multifaceted challenges faced by EU Member States and cities. FIs are considered an effective use of public funds because they can amplify the impact on the economy by leveraging additional private resources, enabling managing authorities to achieve more with fewer resources. (EIB, 2022[4])

• Loan: an agreement in which a lender provides a specified amount of money to a borrower for a set period, with the obligation for the borrower to repay it according to a predefined schedule. They differ from traditional bank loans due to key advantages for borrower, such as lower collateral and longer repayment periods. (EPRS, 2019; EIB, 2016)
• Guarantee: a written commitment to take responsibility for all or part of a third party's debt or obligation if they fail to meet their obligations, such as defaulting on a loan. It assures the lender that the guarantor will cover any shortfall or repay the debt in case of default (EPRS, 2019; EIB, 2016). Guarantees are instruments that help lower risks and costs for managing authorities as their condition and fees can be lower due to the presence of a guarantor. Guarantees are important in sustainable urban development projects that are not necessarily profit-driven and there may exist higher risks for financial institutions. (EIB, 2022)

• Equity and quasi equity capital: the provision of capital to a firm in exchange for total or partial ownership, allowing the investor to share in the firm's profits and potentially assume some management control. Equity investments include instruments such as venture capital, seed capital, and start-up capital, with returns depending on the growth and profitability of the business. These returns are typically realized when the investor exits, either by selling their share to another investor or through an initial public offering (IPO). Quasi-equity, a hybrid between equity and debt, involves higher risk than senior debt but lower risk than common equity, and may be structured as unsecured, subordinated debt or preferred equity. (EPRS, 2019; EIB, 2016). Through predefined social outcomes and impact in the contract with the service provider, equity can help support better social outcome, for instance, by linking service provider’s compensation to predefine social outcomes and benefitting from public and private knowledge to enhance capacity building (EIB, 2022).

In addition to the three majors FIs used by EU institutions, cities are using other IFSs to fund their sustainable urban development projects often in combination with FIs. These schemes share the advantages of FIs: they allow to leverage more funds, allowing managing authorities to do more with less. Their multi-shareholder structure reduces risk, enabling the funding of sustainable projects that traditional institutions might avoid due to uncertain profitability.

• Performance-based contracts: Performance-based contracts are agreements between a service provider and a payer in which payments are contingent on the achievement of specified performance targets or outcomes over the lifetime of the contract (Ogita, Palsson, and Mills, 2022). These contracts incentivise service providers to deliver results efficiently and effectively, as their compensation is tied to their performance. Often used in combination with FIs and in Public Private Partnerships, they shift financial risks to service providers, focus on measurable outcomes rather than inputs, and create incentives for efficiency and effectiveness. These contracts align public and private interests, encourage long-term thinking, and can be applied across various urban sectors. By linking payment to results, they aim to improve value for money in public spending while fostering innovation in service delivery. This approach represents a significant departure from traditional procurement methods, making it a key tool in modern urban finance strategies (European Platform on SUMPs, 2019).

• Bonds: Bonds are debt securities issued by governments, corporations, or other entities to raise capital. When an investor purchases a bond, they are effectively lending money to the issuer in exchange for periodic interest payments and the eventual repayment of the principal amount until the term of the bond expires (Stratigos, 2018). While bonds have been available for centuries, recent innovations have introduced new types of bonds, such as green, social impact and social benefits bonds, aimed at addressing modern social and development challenges. Social impact bonds, for instance, are agreements in which investors provide upfront capital for social services, with payments tied to the achievement of predefined social outcomes and targets (OECD, 2016). Investors are repaid with a premium if these outcomes are met, often provided by a governmental entity. These bonds enable local authorities to leverage third-party investment for social initiatives, reducing their upfront capital requirements and sharing risks with third-party investors.

However, as seen in these examples, projects using these recognised IFSs are mostly used by large cities and capitals or large consortiums, sometimes managed by national agencies for a city application. Therefore, cities – especially small to medium-sized ones – have started to adopt additional forms of IFSs better adapted to their smaller-scale projects, such as:  

• Public Private Partnerships (PPP): Traditionally used for large-scale infrastructure projects, PPPs enable public and private entities to share costs and risks in delivering major projects, often of public service (ADB, 2008). While PPPs are a core element within other IFSs and have long been part of traditional finance, they are now  considered an IFS themselves. This classification stems from their novel application in smaller-scale projects beyond infrastructure, where they serve not only as a financing tool, but also as a means to share knowledge and resources between sectors.

• Crowdfunding investments offer lending or reward-based models, allowing investors to support projects of their choice. Municipalities can leverage community participation, retain control over returns, and diversify financing between traditional methods and crowdfunding. However, managing numerous small investors poses risks, including the possibility of investor attrition during the funding phase (Novikova, A. et al., 2017; Net Zero cities, 2022)

• Participatory budgeting is an innovative and democratic approach that allows both governments and communities to choose jointly spending priorities and allocate the funding of certain projects. (EPRS, 2016)

• Community Land Trust (CLT) allows communities to acquire land to build real estate and to sell real estate without the land to keep prices low. The reselling of the property is also capped to prevent speculation. This IFS is also innovative regarding its governance. Within the CLT boards are made of homeowners, as well as local community members and the local authority represents, each having the same decision-making power (Lenna, 2020).

• Local and Virtual currencies: The aim of local currencies is to support the local economy. These are  often issued by a local authority to be used in a defined geographically limited area with participating companies and associations able to receive this currency (Dodd, 2015). Contrary to local currencies, virtual or digital currencies often use cryptographic functions that allow them to be decentralised and not issued by a traditional entity, such as a central bank or a local government. However, virtual currencies can also be used as local currencies to provide better security features using technology, such as blockchain (European Parliament, 2018)[28].

• Incentive mechanisms: These mechanisms refer to financial and non-financial incentives designed to encourage specific behaviours or actions that contribute to desired outcomes. In the context of innovative finance, incentive mechanisms are used to stimulate and support the development, adoption, and scaling of innovative solutions, products, or services that address social, environmental, or economic challenges.

• Innovative procurement: innovation in procurement refers to leveraging the purchasing power of cities to stimulate the development of new and innovative solutions, products, or services that address specific urban needs or challenges. This involves rethinking traditional procurement processes and adopting methods that actively encourage and reward innovation. By doing so, cities can increase the positive impact on their social, economic and environmental objectives.

• Revolving funds are a type of loan that create a continuous cycle of investment. Entities from the public or private sector may lend money to fund the initial investment of the projects and use the payback of the loan to reinvest into future projects. It is usually used for individuals who may not have access to loans from traditional financial institutions (PROSPECT+, 2017).

• Classical funding schemes targeting innovation: these funding schemes take various shapes, e.g. grants - particularly via Call for Projects or award prizes which aim to enable the funding of innovative sustainable urban projects.

By capitalising on the unique strengths and characteristics of cities, IFSs have found fertile ground for implementation and adaptation to address local urban challenges. Thess localised approaches not only promote sustainable development within these cities but also serve as a testing ground for scalable solutions that can be replicated across broader urban contexts, contributing to the achievement of EU Cohesion policy goals.

The reviewed literature, as observed with the various case studies in the previous chapter, highlights a large number of IFSs available. However, navigating through this wealth of resources and consolidating the relevant information poses a significant challenge. Locating clear and simple explanations regarding the nature of these schemes and their typology can be difficult, particularly for local actors, such as urban practitioners working in local administrations and Managing Urban Authorities (MUA), who are often constrained in terms of budget, time, and resources.

Additionally, the literature mostly focuses on the large-scale and complex IFSs, particularly through financial instruments, which may not necessarily address the needs and particularities of small-scale urban projects,. Although we have seen that other IFS exists for smaller scale projects, they may not easily be identifiable to  MUAs and urban practitioners accessing the alternative forms of IFS. IFSs are being implemented for the various advantages they possess such as increased efficiency, sustainability, and leverage of public funds while improving access to financing, encouraging better investment quality, and providing flexibility for managing authorities – all the while moving away from grant dependency (EPRS, 2019). However, barriers persist mainly due to the fact that these IFSs, even though they have been widely used in the private sector, are still new practices for some administration who do not always have the in-house expertise and capacity to deal with banking and financial concepts (EPRS, 2019). In a report on innovative finance for green transition projects produced by NetZero cities, barriers for cities and urban practitioners to use IFSs are summarised in 10 points (NetZeroCities, 2022):

• Capacity constraints: Many cities, especially smaller ones, lack the necessary staff, skills, and resources to effectively manage and absorb available funds. This creates a disadvantage compared to larger cities with more capacity.
• Complex application processes: The multitude of funding sources at various levels (EU, national, regional) and their often-complicated application procedures create confusion and barriers for cities, particularly smaller ones.
• Insufficient national support: There is a perceived lack of dialogue and collaboration between national administrations and cities, especially smaller ones, in supporting access to funding opportunities.  
• Budget prioritisation challenges: Cities struggle to balance operational needs with investment in long-term transition projects, often facing political constraints and inter-departmental competition for resources.
• Limited engagement with the financial sector: Some cities tend to rely heavily on public subsidies and lack familiarity with alternative funding sources and private sector engagement.
• Inadequate planning: Many cities focus on securing funds without developing clear, detailed plans for their use, leading to delays and inefficiencies.
• Isolated approaches: Climate-related projects are often scattered and disconnected, hindering progress towards comprehensive climate neutrality goals.
• Difficulty in combining funding sources: Cities struggle to effectively blend different funding types (public, private) and levels (EU, national, regional, local).
• Regulatory constraints: National, regional, or local regulations can sometimes limit cities' financing options, such as restrictions on taking on debt.
• Misalignment with EU funding programs: There is a perception among some cities that EU funding programmes are not always in tune with local needs and realities.

These barriers are reflected in the various innovative city’s sustainable urban development projects, whether they are climate-related, social, or technology-related, as they carry considerable risks. According to the OECD, to unlock investment for funding or financing of particular infrastructure investments, right conditions in local authorities need to be in place. These include sufficient financial and investment capacity adapted to legal and regulatory frameworks, and increased cooperation across the various levels of government (OECD, 2021). Although one goal of IFSs is to spread these risks among various stakeholders, innovative projects with high social rewards often find it difficult to demonstrate a clear monetary return on investment (Deloitte, 2018; SIE, 2012).

Moreover, the cultural shift that innovation entails should not be overlooked. Using IFSs requires cities to embrace a more market-oriented and entrepreneurial mindset as well as developing a deeper understanding of complex financial concepts typically used in the private sector or by national governments. This involves a profound change in municipal financial procedures which explains the need for IFSs tailored to the needs and contexts of cities (NetZeroCities, 2022,). While there are numerous options available to source finance for innovative and socio-economic projects, a significant challenge is finding the most appropriate financing tool. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the project, its potential cash flows, the range of financing options available locally and internationally, and the procurement methods available to the government to ensure successful delivery (Deloitte, 2018).

Finally, as observed in previous sections, a key advantage of IFS in financing projects is their ability to be combined with related other funding resources and schemes, whether these funds originate from the EU, national, or regional governments for projects managed at the municipal level as well as private and third-party stakeholders. However, these various stakeholders and the silos that can exist between them and their own regulations pose challenges, as regulations governing interactions among these entities are not necessarily designed with a multi-partner approach and the use of IFSs in mind (NetZeroCities, 2022). Initiatives, such as the Urban Agenda for the EU's (UAEU, 2022) better regulations in procurement, aim to facilitate innovation in cities through a collaborative approach involving multiple partners (EU, member states, regions, and cities). This initiative seeks to simplify procurement processes to unlock the potential of procurement as a tool to enable innovative sustainable projects and address social challenges across the EU (UAEU, 2022).

While challenges exist in implementing IFSs, there are also significant opportunities for cities to leverage these tools for sustainable local projects. These opportunities span multiple levels of governance and require a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach.

Cities are increasingly recognising the need to reshape their internal processes (NetZeroCities, 2022). This evolving mindset is creating fertile ground for implementing IFSs that are more responsive to local needs and contexts. There is a growing interest in outcome-based funding models and leveraging public procurement to drive social innovation. By linking funding to measurable outcomes and harnessing the substantial purchasing power of public institutions, cities can create robust incentives for developing innovative, high-impact solutions to pressing social challenges (SIE, 2012).

However, the most impactful opportunities often lie beyond the municipal level, and are rather nested in city collaboration with key stakeholders and cooperation with other cities throughout the EU. For instance, public stakeholders, such as European institutions and national governments, have crucial roles to play in creating an enabling environment for IFSs. This includes streamlining processes, adapting funding calls to be more inclusive of smaller cities which lack access to the same resources as larger cities such as country capitals, and developing long-term, accessible funding opportunities for cities in general (ECR, 2017). Other key stakeholders including financial institutions, such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Investment Fund (EIF), as well as third-sector stakeholders, such as foundations, have an essential role in enabling high-risk, high-reward projects in the domain of social innovation. By providing initial funding and support for experimental approaches, these institutions can catalyse breakthrough solutions to entrenched social problems. The involvement of major financial institutions like the EIB and EIF can provide the necessary scale and legitimacy to innovative and socially-driven projects to access the capital they need to grow and expand their impact (SIE, 2012).

Similarly, the private sector can have a vital role in the widespread use of IFS in sustainable urban projects. As highlighted in section 2.3, successful IFS implementation, particularly for large-scale infrastructure projects, often depends on strengthening cooperation across local, national, and EU levels, while also engaging private sector financial actors. (OECD, 2021).

Finally, despite their unique characteristics, many cities face similar challenges, making such collaborative approaches particularly valuable. By fostering these partnerships, cities can leverage diverse resources and expertise to address complex urban issues more effectively.

It is this vertical and horizontal collaboration and cooperation that appears to be essential for developing impactful projects using IFSs (OECD, 2021). It underscores the need for a systemic approach to fostering IFS in urban contexts. By aligning efforts across multiple levels of governance, supporting a diverse ecosystem of social innovation, and creating the right incentives for impactful solutions, cities can unlock the full potential of IFS to drive sustainable urban development across economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

The reviewed literature shows that there is a wide array of IFSs, and they differ significantly from one another in nature, as well as the scale they are used. While the various IFSs and particularly Financial Instruments have garnered extensive literature since the mid-2010s, a noticeable gap exists regarding the structure of the literature on IFSs used directly by EU cities to address their specific challenges. Sorting through the available resources and distilling the key information can be challenging. Much of the existing literature focuses on traditional schemes that fund large-scale development projects, implemented by large organisations at supranational, national or regional levels and/or on other geographical regions, characterised by different needs. These large-scale schemes are not always accessible or directly relevant for smaller, innovative city-scale projects involving local stakeholders and citizens.

This study aims to bridge this gap by collecting practical examples of IFSs tailored to the urban context and smaller-scale innovative projects, such as those within the UIA programme. The study will continue looking at effective IFSs used by local authorities, identifying the sectors in which they were more successful, as well as the challenges faced and their success factors. Furthermore, the study will provide recommendations to other cities on how to effectively implement IFSs in their specific contexts, based on the insights gained from the analysis of successful case studies.

As cities confront emerging challenges, the flexibility and adaptability of IFSs will be key in the creation of novel financing schemes that cater to cities’ unique and dynamic requirements. However, the literature review showed that, despite common principles on their ability to complement and augment funds and finance socially benefitting projects with a long-term approach, there is no single, universally accepted definition for IFSs, as they often vary depending on the context in which they are used.

In the table below, are mapped the IFSs discussed in this section to indicate whether they aim to mobilise, distribute, or govern the use of funds.

Mapping relative to whether they aim to mobilise, distribute or govern the use of funds

The literature review was conducted using a combination of database searches and consultation of authoritative sources in the field of urban finance and sustainability. The following online databases and search engines were used: websites and online repositories of relevant organisations such as The European Commission, European Investment Bank, European Parliament, ICLEI, United Nations, OECD, UIA, and other relevant websites for information on real-life applications of IFS to provide the examples.

The search strategy employed a set of relevant keywords, including "innovative finance," "innovative finance mechanisms," "innovative finance for sustainable urban projects," "financing innovation," and "sustainable finance initiative." These terms were used to identify recent literature, with a focus on publications from 2008 onwards, with the majority between 2015 and 2023.

The search results were screened based on their relevance to IFSs for sustainable urban development projects at the city level. Publications were initially evaluated by examining titles, abstracts, and keywords. Those deemed potentially relevant underwent a full-text review to assess their suitability for inclusion in the literature review.

Ultimately, 27 publications were selected for in-depth analysis and inclusion in the review, other web-based sources (32) ranging from articles to city websites were also used to either providing real life examples or strengthen some key findings.

The full list of reviewed sources could be found in the References list.

ADB. (2008). Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Handbook. Asian Development Bank.

Deloitte. (2018). The challenge of paying for smart cities projects

European Commission & European Investment Bank. (2016). Introducing FIs for the European Social Fund.

European Commission & European Investment Bank. (2019). Financial instruments  for urban development  in Portugal – IFRRU 2020 Case Study, fi-compass  fi-compass

European Commission & Joint Research Center. (2019). The future of cities, opportunities, challenges and the way forward. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Committee of the Regions. (2017). Financing climate action: opportunities and challenges for local and regional authorities

European Court of Auditors. (2021). Financial instruments in cohesion policy at closure of the 2007–2013 period. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Investment Bank. (2008). Jessica: A new way of using EU funding to promote sustainable investments and growth in urban areas.

European Investment Bank. (2008). Jessica: A New Way of Using EU Funding to Promote Sustainable Investments and Growth in Urban Areas.

European Investment Bank. (2016). Financial instruments working with microfinance. fi-compass.

European Investment Bank. (2018). Multi-Region Assistance Project Revolving Investment for Cities in Europe (MRA-RICE) Case Study – The Hague.

European Investment Bank. (2022). Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Financial instruments. fi-compass.

European Investment Bank. (2023). Implementing Energy Efficiency projects via Energy Performance Contracting with support from ERDF financial instruments in Poland, Fi-compass

European Parliament. (2018). Virtual Currencies.

European Parliamentary Research Service. (2019). Financial instruments in cohesion policy - Briefing.

European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. (2019). Funding and financing of sustainable urban mobility measures

ICLEI. (2016). Cities and the Sustainable Development Goals

Interreg Central Europe. (2021). Financial instruments and innovative schemes for cultural heritage.

NetZero Cities. (2022). City Climate finance landscape, barriers and best practices in city climate finance.

OECD (2016). Understanding Social Impact Bonds. OECD Working Papers. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/UnderstandingSIBsLux-WorkingPaper.pdf

OECD. (2021). Unlocking infrastructure investment

Social Innovation Europe. (2012). Financing Social Impact Funding social innovation in Europe – mapping the way forward

Stratigos. (2018). The ABCs of Innovative Finance.

The Global Fund. (2018). 40th Board Meeting A structured approach for innovative finance – increasing financial innovation.

UAEU. (2022). Action plan 2022

Ulpiani, G et.al. (2023). Funding and financing the zero emissions journey: urban visions from the 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities Mission.

United Nations. (2009). Innovative financing for development the i – 8 group Leading Innovative Financing for Equity [L.I.F.E.]

Websites

AMS Institute. "Urbiquay: Urban Bridge and Quay Wall Innovations." https://www.ams-institute.org/urban-challenges/resilient-cities/urbiquay-urban-bridge-and-quay-wall-innovations/.

Energy Cities. "The Brussels Green Loan Scheme." https://energy-cities.eu/best-practice/the-brussels-green-loan-scheme/.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "EBRD Lends €10 Million to Boost Energy Efficiency Improvements in Lithuania." https://www.ebrd.com/news/2023/ebrd-lends-10-million-to-boost-energy-efficiency-improvements-in-lithuania.html.

European Commission. "Financial Instruments: Equity, Guarantees, and Loans." https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/financial-instruments-equity-guarantees-and-loans_en.

European Commission. "Inforegio - Cohesion Policy." https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/investment-policy_en#:~:text=Regional%20Policy%20is%20delivered%20through,the%20Cohesion%20Fund%20(CF).

European Commission. "Regional Policy History." https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/what/history_en.

European Commission. “Auctioning”

European Commission. “Investment funds: EU laws and initiatives relating to collective investment funds”.

European Commission. European Commission. "Financial Instruments under Cohesion Policy.". https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funding/financial-instruments_en.

European Environment Agency. "Ghent Crowdfunding Platform: Realising Climate Change Adaptation through Urban Greening." https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/metadata/case-studies/ghent-crowdfunding-platform-realising-climate-change-adaptation-through-urban-greening/#challenges_anchor.

European Union. "EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021." https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R1060.

Eurostat. "Urban-Rural Europe – Introduction, 2022." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Urban-rural_Europe_-_introduction.

FEDARENE. (2022). Replicable practices on innovative financing schemes

Fi-compass. "Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund." https://www.fi-compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/AMIF_factsheet_financial instruments_web.pdf.

Fi-compass. "VIPA Renovation: New Lithuanian Fashion."https://www.fi-compass.eu/showcase-2023/vipa-renovation-new-lithuanian-fashion.

ICCarus Ghent. "Evaluation Reports." https://iccarusghent.wordpress.com/2022/12/15/evaluation-reports/.

Interreg Europe. "Brussels Green Loan Scheme (Infinite Solutions Project)." https://www.interregeurope.eu/good-practices/brussels-green-loan-scheme-infinite-solutions-project.

Magazine Antwerpen. "Circulair Zuid 2018-2021: Technology Virtual Rewards System." https://magazine.antwerpen.be/circulair-zuid_en_2018-2021/technology-virtual-rewards-system.

Region Stockholm. Region Stockholm Green Bond Impact Report 2023. https://www.regionstockholm.se/49917d/contentassets/f9068bd8b0be4a3bb78020d0f034d1c2/region-stockholm-green-bond-impact-report-2023.pdf.

Urban Innovative Actions. "Ghent (Call 3)." https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/ghent-call3.

Urban Innovative Actions. "Playing Together Towards Sustainable Mobility. The Air-Break Gamification Experience." https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/news/playing-together-towards-sustainable-mobility-airbreak-gamification-experience.

Urban Innovative Actions. "Turin Selects 19 Projects under ToNite Call: Creating New Services for a Safer Night Along Dora River." https://uia-initiative.eu/fr/news/turin-selects-19-projects-under-tonite-call-creating-new-services-safer-night-along-dora-river.

Urban Innovative Actions. "UIA Knowledge Management Strategy." https://www.uia-initiative.eu/sites/default/files/2020-07/UIA_knowledge_management_strategy_0.pdf.

Urban Innovative Actions. "Växjö. https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/vaxjo.

Urban Innovative Actions. "What is Urban Innovative Actions?". https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/about-us/what-urban-innovative-actions#:~:text=Urban%20Innovative%20Actions%20(UIA)%20is,372%20million%20for%202014%2D2020.

Urban Maestro. Urban Maestro CLTB V Lenna. https://usercontent.one/wp/urbanmaestro.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/urban-maestro_cltb_v-lenna.pdf.

Ville de Lille. "Les Lauréats." https://www.lille.fr/Actualites/Budget-participatif-4-les-laureats.

Ville de Lille. "Règlement du Budget Participatif." https://participez.lille.fr/pages/reglement-du-budget-participatif#:~:text=12%20citoyens%20mineurs%20au%20moins,quartiers%2C%20et%20des%20communes%20associ%C3%A9es.&text=Chaque%20membre%20du%20jury%20dispose%20d'un%20droit%20de%20vote.&text=Sont%20%C3%A9ligibles%20toutes%20les%20id%C3%A9es,satisfaction%20de%20l'int%C3%A9r%C3%AAt%20g%C3%A9n%C3%A9ral.

Ville de Lille. "Un Micro-Boisement pour Favoriser la Biodiversité." https://www.lille.fr/Participer/Participation-citoyenne/Le-budget-participatif-lillois/Vos-projets-se-realisent/Un-micro-boisement-pour-favoriser-la-biodiversite.

YouTube. "Urban Maestro: Financing Urban Development." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIJ9uhduSBI.

City of Ljubljana. “Energy Retrofit of Public Buildings in the City of Ljubljana”

European Investment Bank. (2017). ELENA completed project Factsheet