Odense BPMN case

The Goal of the Process

The overall objective of the process is to guide the end-to-end renovation of pre-1977 buildings in Odense, ensuring that Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are properly assessed, permitted, implemented and verified.

Odense BPMN process (use the magnifier to see details)

A second objective is to coordinate multiple actors - public authorities, technical experts, and private stakeholders - to ensure compliance with heritage, structural, environmental, and urban planning requirements.

The Policy Decision Framework

The BPMN proposes a framework for policy decisions based on a coordinated review by multiple departments, regulatory compliance and iterative improvement. Each municipal unit - planning, heritage, environment, finance and safety - assesses the proposal in parallel, using technical evidence such as structural, environmental and stormwater evaluations. These inputs then converge to create a joint decision on whether the application package is acceptable or requires revision, forming an embedded feedback loop that strengthens compliance. The framework relies on key contextual variables, including administrative capacity, clarity of incentives, regulatory complexity and public or stakeholder sensitivity. Final approval is conditional and supported by inspections and the ability to require corrective actions. Overall, the framework ensures that NBS retrofits to buildings constructed before 1977 align with safety requirements, heritage protection, environmental goals and long-term urban strategy.

Key Actors

Building owner/developer

Initiates the renovation project and decides to retrofit using NBS. They select the professionals, submit the Application Package (AP) and manage revisions, as well as engaging contractors.

Architect/Landscape Architect

Develops the renovation project, integrating NBS. They prepare and later modify the Application Package according to feedback.

Structural engineer/environmental consultant

Conducts structural and environmental assessments. Provides results to the architect and owner.

Odense Municipality (multiple departments)

• The Urban Planning & Culture Department receives and coordinates the AP review, checks planning consistency, issues permits and conducts final inspections.
• The Climate & Environment Department evaluates compliance with climate, stormwater and environmental rules.
• The Financial Department assesses financial incentive eligibility and the long-term economic and ecological impacts.
• Cultural Heritage Division: Reviews compliance with heritage protection requirements.

Specialised contractor

Implements renovation works, including NBS installations.They execute revisions if required.

VandCenter Syd (Utility)

Carries out technical compliance checks on stormwater systems when requested by the municipality.

Local Heritage Councils

Provides expert opinions and recommendations regarding cultural heritage integrity.

Description of the Main Process Flow

Project initiation by building owner The process begins when the owner decides to renovate a property built before 1977, with the potential to integrate NBS. They then appoint the necessary professionals, such as architects, engineers and consultants.

Technical preparation phase

Upon receiving the assignment, the architect develops the renovation project with NBS features.

If structural assessments are required, the architect requests these from structural/environmental consultants, who then carry out the assessments and provide the results.

Preparation of the Application Package (AP)

Based on the assessments, the architect prepares the AP, incorporating all NBS aspects.

The AP is then sent to the building owner, who forwards it to the Odense Municipality.

Municipality receives and dispatches AP

When the AP arrives, the municipality distributes the review tasks across several internal departments.

• Urban Planning & Culture
• Climate & Environment
• Financial Dept.
• Cultural Heritage Division

Each unit assesses its portion of the AP.

• Cultural Heritage Division: Checks heritage compliance and performs heritage assessments.
• Urban Planning: Checks consistency with local planning and the city's vision.
• Climate & Environment: Checks compliance with climate risk, stormwater and environmental regulations.
• The Financial Department evaluates incentive eligibility and economic and ecological impact.
• Technical & Fire Safety Review: Ensures safety and regulatory compliance.

These evaluations converge at a consolidation gateway.

Decision: Is revision needed?

After consolidation, the municipality decides whether the AP is acceptable or requires revision. If revision is needed: The municipality will request revisions, which will trigger a message to be sent back to the architect and owner. If no revision is needed: Building and environmental permits are issued.

Revision loop

If revisions are requested, the building owner asks professionals for support. The professionals then modify the AP and resubmit the revised version to the municipality. A new review cycle takes place until approval is granted.

Permit issuance and renovation

Once the plans have been approved, the municipality issues the necessary permits. The specialised contractor implements the renovation, including NBS such as green roofs and rainwater solutions. After completion, the contractor may implement additional revisions if required.

Final inspection

The municipality conducts a final inspection. If any issues persist, revisions will be requested again. If the inspection is passed, the final documentation is prepared.

Closure

The municipality closes the procedure and informs the relevant parties. It also updates the city’s records and sustainability indicators.

Key Highlights

• High level of interdepartmental collaboration: many municipal divisions work together to provide a comprehensive assessment of heritage, climate, safety, planning and incentives.
• Strong focus on Nature-Based Solutions: the process explicitly integrates NBS at multiple assessment points, including structural, environmental and urban planning aspects.
• Iterative review and revision loop: the workflow supports several cycles of feedback to ensure that the AP complies with all technical, legal, environmental and social requirements.
• Regulatory and technical complexity: the process involves numerous gateways and message flows between different stakeholders, reflecting the complexity of renovating older buildings with NBS.

Critical process variables

Variables	Scale_0	Scale_05_mid	Scale_+1	Mapping_Rule
Availability of information about securing insurance coverage for NBS installations	0 = No availability	0.5 = Adequate/partial availability	+1 = Full, timely availability	Score 0 for none; 0.5 for partial/adequate; +1 for full & timely. Interpolate for in‑between.
Level of expertise on NBS application to retrofitting among professional involved	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Level of expertise on NBS application to retrofitting among professional involved	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Availability of integrated digital permitting system in the Municipality	0 = No availability	0.5 = Adequate/partial availability	+1 = Full, timely availability	Score 0 for none; 0.5 for partial/adequate; +1 for full & timely. Interpolate for in‑between.
Level of representation of high quality expertise on NBS among public servants (especially in retrofitting pre-77 buildings)	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Availability of interdepartmental feedback	0 = No availability	0.5 = Adequate/partial availability	+1 = Full, timely availability	Score 0 for none; 0.5 for partial/adequate; +1 for full & timely. Interpolate for in‑between.
Net Present value (NPV) index of the intervention (benefit–cost)	0 = Strongly negative (NPV ≤ 0)	0.5 = Breakeven (NPV ≈ 0)	+1 = Strongly positive (NPV high)	Rescale NPV to [0,1]: NPV ≤ official rate → 0; around official rate → 0.5; NPV ≥ official rate → +1; interpolate for in-between.
Clarity of incentives or financial support mechanisms	0 = Opaque/ambiguous	0.5 = Generally understandable with gaps	+1 = Clear, unambiguous and documented	Assess clarity of docs/processes. Map opaque to 0; mixed to 0.5; clear to +1.
Degree of environmental competence in city administration to evaluate NBS	0 = None/absent	0.5 = Partial/occasional	+1 = High/consistent	Judge presence of the core factor. None → 0; partial → 0.5; high → +1.
Degree of integration with water, energy and waste system competence in city administration to evaluate NBS in retrofitting	0 = None/absent	0.5 = Partial/occasional	+1 = High/consistent	Judge presence of the core factor. None → 0; partial → 0.5; high → +1.
Level of interaction and complexity of regulations (local, regional, national)	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Degree of commitment to future monitoring and sustainability coming from construction permit provisions (conditionality)	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Capacity of enforcement of corrective action by city administration	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Success rate in integrate NBS into the city's renovation of pre-1977 buildings	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Degree of inclusion of NBS in city operational urban framework	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Level of public awareness of NBS	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Stakeholder & Local communities engagement index	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Level of Technical compliance of the AP/NBS	0 = Very low/novice	0.5 = Adequate/competent	+1 = High/expert	Use competency rubrics or years of experience. Normalize to [0,1] interval.
Impact of the attractiveness of skills upgrading in the retrofitting of pre-1977 buildings with NBS	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Number of objections or complaints filed by neighbors during renovation	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].
Degree of misalingnment during the renovation phase	0 = Lowest/most adverse state	0.5 = Neutral/acceptable state	+1 = Highest/most favorable state	Define measurable indicator and min/max anchors; linearly map to [0,1].

Lesson Learned

Odense - The old city center

• Close collaboration between planners, environmental experts, heritage authorities, utilities and financial specialists is critical for the successful implementation of NBS.
• Iterative feedback loops improve quality. The multi-step revision cycle helps to ensure compliance, but it must be well coordinated to avoid delays.
• Clearer incentive frameworks accelerate adoption. Financial clarity and economic impact assessments significantly influence renovation decisions involving NBS.
• Digital permitting systems streamline operations. The presence or absence of integrated digital systems has a significant impact on efficiency and turnaround times.
• Stakeholder engagement reduces resistance. Public awareness and heritage council input can help to avoid conflicts, particularly for culturally sensitive buildings.
• Technical compliance must be anticipated early on. Structural, environmental and stormwater assessments should be addressed at an early stage to prevent costly rework.

Download the file

Here you can download the *bpmn file for use outside the PoMM platform with modelling software: DOWNLOAD THE BPMN MODEL (*zip.format)

You can upload the *bpmn file simply drag and drop it inside the PoMM BPMN area when you start a new session and after the definition of the Unit of analysis.

Back to >> PoMM for the Odense D4Runoff pilot
Back to >> The FCM simulation tests & results
Back to >> Comprehensive Knowledge Base and Full Documentation