Over the past century, neighbourhoods have been continuously (re)configured as the ideal scale to tackle technological, social, and economic challenges (Hemmersam, 2023; Hill, 2023; Pagh & Cook, 2023). Early 20th-century models such as Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City and Clarence Perry’s neighbourhood unit envisioned self-sufficient communities, linking urban form to collective land trusts and service catchments that made residents stakeholders in local governance (Howard, 1902; Perry, 1929). Post-war New Towns in the UK and Soviet microdistricts scaled up these ideas through state development corporations, centralising decisions and curtailing local discretion (Hemmersam, 2023). Contemporary approaches from New Urbanism—including eco-neighbourhoods, smart cities, and the 15-minute city—prioritise accessibility and environmental goals while recentering municipalities and neighbourhood associations in participatory planning, usually via consultation rather than long-term stewardship (Mattern, 2019; Moreno et al., 2015). Yet, the intricate mix of physical and social relations that constitute a neighbourhood have made it consistently difficult for researchers, policymakers, and planners to arrive at a single, universally accepted definition (Allen, 2018; Hemmersam, 2023; Keller, 1966; Pagh & Cook, 2023; Sullivan & Taylor, 2007). As a result, neighbourhoods have been both planned and understood through diverse, context-specific approaches shaped by differing assumptions about what neighbourhoods are, who they are for, and what they should do (Allen, 2018; Hemmersam, 2023; Talen, 2017).
Scholars typically categorise neighbourhood concepts into three categories: (1) spatial; (2) social; and (3) socio-spatial (Allen, 2018). The spatial perspective, derived from architecture and urban planning, focuses on physical boundaries, layout, and built form, emphasising functional coherence (Hillier, 2007; Talen, 2017). The social perspective, derived from social science, understands neighbourhoods as social constructs produced through interaction, perception, and shared meaning (Keller, 1966; Chaskin, 1997; Sullivan & Taylor, 2007). The socio-spatial perspective, grounded in Massey's relational conception of place, integrates these two realms by understanding neighbourhoods as dynamic products of the interplay between spatial structures and social processes (Allen, 2018; Massey, 2005).
Given these multifaceted definitions, research into neighbourhoods—and the practices that shape them—requires a clear conceptual framework (Allen, 2018; Sullivan & Taylor, 2007). While spatial and social perspectives offer valuable but partial insights, this study adopts a socio-spatial perspective as a productive lens for examining missions at the neighbourhood scale, defining neighbourhoods as “both the physical context in which people live and the social opportunities available” (Pagh & Cook, 2023).
Extending this definition, Pagh and Cook (2023) identify four interrelated socio-spatial dimensions through which spatial structures and social processes interact and co-evolve: (1) social infrastructure, referring to how communities connect in everyday life; (2) streets, as the defining physical infrastructure where life moves; (3) nature, as an essential consideration for sustainable design; and (4) governance, as key to ensuring enduring diversity and meaningful participation. Together, these dimensions provide a framework for understanding neighbourhood change as a socio-spatial process (Lupton & Power, 2004; Pagh & Cook, 2023).
Despite a substantial body of literature positioning neighbourhoods as the ideal scale to tackle complex problems, contemporary urban development and policymaking has fallen short of delivering socially and environmentally sustainable neighbourhoods capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century (Grillitsch, Coenen and Morgan, 2023; Institute for Government, 2025; Local Trust, 2025; Moallemi et al., 2020; Neighbourhoods Commission, 2025; Pagh & Cook, 2023; Uyarra et al., 2025; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020). Instead, neoliberal and technocratic approaches to urban planning and policy – such as cost–benefit evaluation frameworks, or efficiency-oriented ‘smart city’ agendas – have frequently left the production of the built environment in the hands of capital interests, outdated planning systems, and chance – fuelling chronic underinvestment, spatial degradation, and the systematic hollowing out of urban spaces (Gómez-Mont, 2021; Neighbourhoods Commission, 2025; Pagh & Cook, 2023; Mattern, 2019). These reductionist approaches – privileging efficiency and economic growth over complexity and local relevance – have stripped places of their capacity to mobilise the neighbourhood scale for transformative change (Bellinson, 2022; Garza & Garza, 2024; Institute for Government, 2025; Mazzucato & Ryan-Collins, 2022; Neighbourhoods Commission, 2025; Pagh & Cook, 2023; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020).
Since the mid-2010s, however, there has been a rise in "third generation" approaches – ranging from mission-oriented innovation policy (Mazzucato, 2018), challenge-driven policy (Coenen et al., 2015), and transformative innovation policy (Diercks et al., 2019). Under the umbrella of "missions," these approaches aim to drive systemic transitions to address global challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and food security (Fastenrath et al., 2023; Hill, 2022; Kattel & Mazzucato, 2025; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Uyarra et al., 2025; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020). While missions have largely been framed within regional innovation systems and sustainability transitions, their uptake – particularly in Europe – has catalysed a wave of trans-local initiatives and public organisations driving collaborative engagement and bottom-up experimentation (Bellinson, 2022; Kattel et al., 2025; Uyarra et al., 2025; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2022), including the EU Mission for 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities, the OECD Mission Lab, DEAL, UNDP’s M4EG Facility, and C40 Cities (Kattel et al., 2025). Place-based framing has become central to translating broad missions into context-specific goals, strategies, and actions (Ali, Brazell, Somerville, & Wyld, 2025; Bellinson, 2022; Fastenrath et al., 2023; Hill, 2022; Uyarra et al., 2025; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020).
Within this turn, scholars propose "mission neighbourhoods" (Neighbourhoods Commission, 2025; Pagh & Cook, 2023) – or similarly "mission-oriented innovation districts" (Fastenrath et al., 2023) – as a way to direct innovation embedded within socio-technical structures to shape neighbourhoods as mechanisms for transformational change. In other words, positioning the neighbourhood as the ideal scale for systemic transformation by leveraging socio-spatial dimensions of the neighbourhood not as static features, but as active levers for change (Institute for Government, 2025; Kattel et al., 2025; Local Trust, 2025; Mazzucato, 2018, 2024; Moallemi et al., 2020; Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020). In turn, this places attention on the innovation capabilities of the public sector and the governance arrangements that shape how mission neighbourhoods are formed (Mazzucato & Dibb, 2019; Pagh & Cook, 2023).
In the context of public sector organisations, recent scholarship highlights that public sector innovation capabilities are vital for addressing complex societal challenges (Kattel, 2022; Sørensen & Torfing, 2022; Wolfram, Borgström & Farrelly, 2019). Successfully forming mission neighbourhoods, for instance, depends significantly on the capacities and capabilities of public authorities, with scholars arguing that for missions to be transformative, governments must reconfigure bureaucracy, foster cross-sectoral collaboration, and enable participatory processes (Björk et al., 2022; Ehnert, 2023; Kattel & Mazzucato, 2025; Sovacool et al., 2020). To this end, Sørensen & Torfing (2022) conceptualise Three Orders of Public Innovation (Figure 2) as the enabling conditions to stabilise and scale these processes: first-order changes in policies and services, second-order innovations in collaborative processes, and third-order innovations in institutional designs.
Figure 2. How the three orders of innovation condition and transform each other
Adapted from Sørensen & Torfing (2022)
Kattel (2022) extends this perspective, focusing on the dynamic capabilities – the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure competencies in response to changing environments – that public organisations must develop in order to enable new forms of public innovation. These capabilities are synthesised as routines of sensing (identifying problems and opportunities), seizing (mobilising networks and resources), and transforming (reconfiguring institutions and practices). Viewed together, Sørensen & Torfing’s three orders of innovation describe what kinds of change missions demand, while Kattel’s dynamic capabilities highlight how governments can generate and maintain those changes in practice (Kattel, 2022; Sørensen & Torfing, 2022).
At the neighbourhood scale, however, conditions and capabilities for public innovation face several governance deficits that limit their capacity to deliver missions (Bellinson, 2020; Fastenrath et al., 2023; Mazzucato, 2024; Sørensen & Torfing, 2022; Uyarra et al., 2025). National mission-orientated innovation policy remains “spatially blind,” overlooking the intricate mix of social and physical relations that define neighbourhoods — reflecting a lack of sensing (Fastenrath et al., 2023; Uyarra et al., 2025). A “missing middle” in innovation infrastructure paralyses coordination across levels of public and private institutions — reflecting a lack of seizing (Bellinson, 2020; Mazzucato, 2024). While the absence of “generative institutions” (Ansell & Torfing, 2021) weakens transforming capabilities by limiting sustained cross-sectoral collaboration (Fastenrath et al., 2023; Uyarra et al., 2025). Collectively, these deficits constrain both democratic legitimacy and operational capacity (Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020; Kalliomäki, Oinas, & Salo, 2023).
In response, scholarship in sustainability transitions, urban innovation, and public sector innovation highlights the role of transition intermediaries in bridging the “missing middle” of urban mission governance (Ehnert, 2023; Fastenrath et al., 2023; Kanda et al., 2020; Kivimaa et al., 2019; Mazzucato, 2024; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Sovacool et al., 2020; Uyarra et al., 2025; Von Wirth et al., 2019). Scholars argue that intermediaries “anchor” missions in their specific spatial, social, and economic contexts – bridging social innovation niches and established regimes through long-term system orchestration and support that builds civic capacity (Bulkeley et al., 2017; Fauth, De Moortel & Schuurman, 2024; Fastenrath et al., 2023; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Möller & Nätti, 2022; Kalliomäki, Oinas, & Salo, 2023; Kivimaa et al., 2019; Sovacool et al., 2020; Uyarra et al., 2025; Von Wirth et al., 2019). Kanda et al. (2020) locate this anchoring across system levels: (1) in-between entities in a network; (2) in-between networks of entities; and (3) in-between actors, networks, and institutions—pinpointing where intermediaries compensate for weak dynamic capabilities (Bellinson, 2020; Ehnert, 2023; Fastenrath et al., 2023; Mazzucato, 2024).
However, the literature varies widely in how it defines intermediaries – ranging from formal, recognised entities to emergent, informal actors, under public, private, or hybrid governance arrangements (Ehnert, 2023; Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Möller & Nätti, 2022; Kanda et al., 2020; Kivimaa, 2014; Kivimaa et al., 2019; Sovacool et al., 2020). Table 1 synthesises this literature, providing a conceptual scaffolding of intermediary types, their position and their contributions to urban missions.
Table 1. Transition intermediary types and their application to urban missions