Integrated Governance Follow Up Report Draft

8/9/2019 Integrated Governance Follow Up Report Draft

1/23

Page of 23

Follow-up Report

INTEGRATED URBAN

GOVERNANCEThe research leading to these results has received funding from the

European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under

grant agreement n 282679. This report forms project deliverable 6.2

WP6


2/23

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

i

Contents1 About this report ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 Audience ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Purpose of the report ............................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Report preparation ................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... 3

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

3 Key findings from the Synthesis Report .......................................................................................... 4

3.1 General principles of integrated urban governance ............................................................... 4

3.2 Sustainable urban development as a wicked issue ................................................................ 5

3.3 Towards an integrated approach ............................................................................................ 6

4 Summary of structured dialogue .................................................................................................... 8

4.1 General principles of integrated urban management ............................................................ 8

4.2 Sustainable urban development as a wicked issue .............................................................. 12

4.3 Towards an integrated approach .......................................................................................... 16

5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1 General principles of integrated urban management .......................................................... 20

5.2 Sustainable development as a wicked issue ......................................................................... 21

5.3 Towards an integrated approach .......................................................................................... 22


3/23


2

1 About this report

1.1

AudienceThis is the fifth in a series of Follow-up Reports (FUR) produced by URBAN-NEXUS. These reports are

intended mainly for municipalities, policy-makers and businesses engaged in urban issues, but may

also be of interest to organisations, institutions and networks involved - or needing to be involved -

in decision-making and developing partnerships to tackle problems encountered in urban

sustainable development and governance. This includes public sector agencies, utilities, the private

sector, civil society organisations and community groups.

1.2 Purpose of the report

The FUR summarises the discussions that took place during the Dialogue Caf Smart Green Cities

that took place in Bristol on 1st

to 3rd

April 2014. The aim of the FUR, in conjunction with the

accompanying Synthesis Report (SR), is to help inform debate and discussion as part of an ongoing

structured dialogue across a network of urban researchers, professionals and actors on developing

integrated approaches to the challenges and opportunities of sustainable urban development.

Each FUR of the URBAN-NEXUS project will address a different theme; the focus of this report is the

integration of urban governance with particular reference to the previous thematic areas of urban

climate resilience, health and quality of life, competing for land-use, and data and monitoring.

1.3

Report preparation

Integrated governance in urban areas was identified as a priority research area by URBAN-NET (EU

predecessor research project of URBAN-NEXUS) within a strategic research framework for

sustainable urban development. The URBAN-NET study was based on partners co llective knowledge

and evidence pooled from across Europe as part of a comparative assessment of national and

regional research programmes.

This report was prepared following the Dialogue Caf which facilitated a structured dialogue

between participants. The SR formed the basis of this dialogue; the SR considers research, mainly

European, background material from a variety of sources including existing research evidence, case

studies from cities and projects results undertaken at EU level. This information was used to

construct a series of questions that were posed to Dialogue Caf participants to guide the structured

dialogue; this report summarises the outcomes of this dialogue.

This report should serve as basis to inform an evolving dialogue, fostering integrated approaches to

urban sustainability that become intrinsic to all decision-making processes and partnership activities

related to integrated urban governance across the other priority research areas being addressed in

the URBAN-NEXUS project.

First, this report introduces the Dialogue Caf, its structure and participants. It then summarises thediscussions from each dialogue session in turn before finally offering some concluding remarks.


4/23


3

1.4

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank everyone who contributed material, especially the participants of

the Dialogue Caf who engaged in rich discussions throughout the event. We would particularly like

to thank Bristol City Council who welcomed participants to the event, provided a fascinating

narrative to the boat trip on the development of Bristol and presented their insights into the

successful Bristol European Green Capital 2015 bid.

2 IntroductionThis Follow-up Report summarises the URBAN NEXUS Dialogue Caf in Bristol, UK on 1

stto 3

rdApril

2014. During these two days, a structured dialogue took place amongst a cross-section of

representatives from a range of organisations with an interest or remit in urban governance. The

Dialogue Caf provided an opportunity for researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from across

Europe to share their knowledge, experiences, concerns, organisational aims, objectives and visions.

It represented the fifth and final stage in the URBAN-NEXUS process of building long-term strategic

partnerships to tackle some of the broader issues linked to adopting an integrated approach to

urban sustainability.

Background material: theSynthesis Report(SR),programmeandkeynote presentationscan be

downloaded from the Urban Nexus websitewww.urban-nexus.eu.

The key findings from the SR were used to formulate a series of questions to participants that

formed the basis of the structured dialogue; see following section. There were four sessions in which

participants were asked to consider these questions. The first session, Speed Networking, was

structured to provide participants with the opportunity to introduce themselves to most of the other

participants. The Speed Networking was also used to consider a series of ten questions developed

from the key findings that we felt could be answered relatively quickly with little discussion and

would serve as useful ice breakers to relax participants and encourage communication. Some of

these questions were developed more fully in later sessions; others were more simplistic in nature

and were to allow us to conduct further research (e.g. examples of good practice). The Speed

Networking was, as its name suggests, fast paced giving groups of four or five participants a minute

each to give their thoughts on the questions before moving on to the next question with different

participants; in this session each participant should have answered most of the questions. The

remaining three sessions provided an opportunity for groups of nine or ten participants to discuss

one question for twenty minutes. The three sessions had different themes developed from the SR:

General principles of integrated urban governance;

Sustainable urban development as a wicked issue;

Towards an integrated approach.

The first two themes, general principles of sustainable urban governance and sustainable urban

development as a wicked issue, had been broken down into a series of three questions each with

every participant having the opportunity to discuss all three. The final theme, towards an integrated

approach, was broken down into six questions so participants only discussed three of them in the

session. There were six large tables at which discussions took place; the participants were directed
http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/URBAN%20NEXUS%20Integrating%20Urban%20Governance%20Synthesis%20Report.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/URBAN%20NEXUS%20Integrating%20Urban%20Governance%20Synthesis%20Report.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/URBAN%20NEXUS%20Integrating%20Urban%20Governance%20Synthesis%20Report.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/Programme.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/Programme.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/Programme.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=32http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=32http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=32http://www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=33&Itemid=32http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/Programme.pdfhttp://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/images/URBAN%20NEXUS%20Integrating%20Urban%20Governance%20Synthesis%20Report.pdf


5/23


4

to the first table based on symbols on their name badges where they discussed one question. After

twenty minutes they moved to the second symbol on their badge where they discussed the second

question with different participants. This was repeated after a further twenty minutes for the third

and final question of the session. In the case of the first two themes, which had only three questions,

each question was discussed by two tables, whereas for the final theme each table had a different

question. Each table had an anchor who remained at the table throughout the session to guide

discussions and take notes; participants were also encouraged to write on the table clothes.

This Follow-up Report contains a summary of the discussions that took place during these sessions

based on the key findings from the SR. The key findings from the SR will then be revisited; updating

and reformulating them as necessary.

3 Key findings from the Synthesis Report

3.1 General principles of integrated urban governance

The key findings from the Synthesis Report for this theme were:

KF1: A benchmark for integrated governance of sustainable urban development would require: 1)

ecological considerations to be the guiding principle for national, regional and local decision making;

2) policy to be comprehensive, aggregative and consistent (see definitions below); 3) policy to be

vertically integrated (within sectoral policy communities); and, 4) policy to be horizontally integrated

(i.e. across sectoral policy communities).

KF2: The different modes of planning and public policy management are commonly classified into

ideal typese.g. hierarchies, markets and networks or government, governance and

governmentality. These are not mutually exclusive options; an integrated approach to sustainable

urban development would exploit multiple modes of governing.

KF3: The challenge of sustainable urban development requires public authorities (the European

Union, national, regional and local governments) to adopt a decisive leadership role, to encourage

business, consumers and citizens to take appropriate action and to monitor and enforce compliance

with minimum standards. This can be encapsulated in the concept of the ensuring state.

In the Speed Networking session the questions related to this theme were:

What does the term smart green cities mean toyou?

Do you believe that a strong political lead from public authorities is required to advance the

sustainable urban development agenda?

Provide an example of successful integration of governance for sustainable urban development.

Provide an example of poorly integrated governance for sustainable urban development.

In the first break out session the questions related to this theme were:

Are the dimensions of integrated governance for sustainable urban development set out in KF1

desirable and/or feasible in practice? Explain. Examples?


6/23


5

What is (and what should be) the balance between the modes of decision making set out in KF2?

Explain. Examples?

What is (and what should be) the role of political and professional leadership in integrated

governance for sustainable urban development? Explain. Examples?

3.2 Sustainable urban development as a wicked issue


KF4: Sustainable development is often characterised as a wicked problem. This recognises a high

degree of complexity in respect of: 1) the substantive issues to be addressed; 2) the course of action

to be pursued; and, 3) the political, social and cultural milieu in which this is undertaken.

KF5: The concept of the wicked problem emerged as a critique of the failure of the post-war

rational, scientific paradigm of public policy to respond to the demands and desires of an ever more

heterogeneous population.

KF6: Sustainable development differs from orthodox public policy problems in nature, scope and

magnitude. It can, thus, be characterised as a super wicked problem.

KF7: The inherent complexity of wicked problems requires a transition from a circumscribed rational,

technocratic policy process to a broader societal dialoguea process of messy governance in

pursuit of clumsy solutions that recognises the validity of multiple, subjective stakeholder

viewpoints.

KF8: In the past decade, the nature and scope of environmental policy making have narrowed, from

the holism of sustainable development to a more technocratic and mitigation-focused emphasis on

carbon control.

KF9: The rational, scientific policy model favours single vision solutions and standardised, universal

and transferable blueprints that direct policy along predetermined pathways.

KF10: A more productive approach is to acknowledge and take advantage of the multiple pathways

to sustainable development that exist as a result of multiple stakeholder inputs; to identify and

exploit windows of opportunity and to build contingent, issue based alliances.


Do you believe that advances in technology are more important than effecting long term societal

change in responding to climate change?

Do you believe that responding to climate change is the responsibility of the individual or society?

Do you use websites whose purpose is to disseminate good practice on sustainable urban

development? Which?

In the second break out session the questions related to this theme were:

To what extent does sustainable urban development conform to the definition of a wicked problem

as set out in KF4, KF5 and KF6? Explain. Examples?


7/23


6

To what extent does the proliferation of tools, policy frameworks and funding programmes at

European and national levels contribute to a co-ordination and implementation problem at the urban

level? Explain. Examples?

Does the challenge of climate change prompt real innovation in governance or is the problem re-

interpreted to fit with pre-existing modes of decision making? Explain. Examples?

3.3 Towards an integrated approach


KF11: The framework of collaborative governance provides an appropriate mode of policy making

for sustainable urban development. This advocates a collective, consensus-based process based on

argument and discussion. It assumes a two way dialogue between public and non-public actors that

transcends mere consultation and involves genuine sharing of responsibility for outcomes.

KF12: The theory of collaborative planning provides a conceptual basis for discussion of buildinggovernance capacity around a shared vision that can accommodate diversity and difference. It

argues that multiple stakeholder interpretations of the city represent a valuable knowledge resource

in building a strategic response to the challenge of sustainable urban development and a

participative process of strategic dialogue represents a valuable vehicle for building relational capital

between stakeholders

KF13: A key objective of collaborative governance is the promotion of social learning. This seeks to

change understandings on the part of urban stakeholders (and, thus, their behaviour) through social

interaction and, in so doing, stimulates new ways of thinking about and responding to the challenge

of sustainable urban development. A social learning approach requires a departure from traditional

ideas of participation, based on a zero-sum distribution of power between actors, to a more

collective orientation.

KF14: Integrated governance for sustainable urban development requires an expansion of the

knowledge (defined as a form of sense making and, thus, distinct from information) base applied to

decision making, to reinterpret problems and causal links and to define new policy pathways.

Research indicates the continuing resilience of scientific and economic knowledge applied though

hierarchical forms to the exclusion of local situated knowledge.

KF15: Knowledge boundaries between different stakeholder groups represent a key obstacle for

sustainable urban development. Boundaries exist between scientific and non-scientific actors. Animpenetrable boundary implies no meaningful communication is possible between these. Too

permeable a boundary risks the contamination of science with politics. Boundary spanning is

possible through the co-production of knowledge (intensive engagement of participants on each

side of the boundary) and the production of boundary objects (common products of negotiation at

the boundary between science and policy).

KF16: The notion of boundary work has been extended to include collaboration in tackling wicked

issues which, by definition, are not resolvable by the actions of individual agencies. Boundary

spanners are lynchpins, brokers, and gatekeepers with a dedicated role to facilitate the

collaboration between diverse sets of stakeholders. This requires particular skills sets: networking,

communication, policy entrepreneurship, etc. A key challenge is that boundary spanners, while


8/23


7

pivotal local actors, can be disconnected from their home organisations because of their externally

oriented perspective.

KF17: A fundamental challenge is moving from dialogue to action. A focus on big bang policies is

inappropriate (and generates opposition). A progressive incremental approach that focuses on how

small steps cumulatively produce significant returns over time is more appropriate. The keychallenge is to counter lock in of unsustainable pathways and to embed more sustainable ones

through building incremental support for Initially) modest intervention.

KF18: Four key contingencies determine whether collaborative governance is likely to be more or

less effective. These are: starting conditions (the pre-existing levels of trust, conflict and social

capital); facilitative leadership (essential for mediation and facilitation of the collaborative process);

institutional design (the rules and protocols of collaboration); and, the collaborative process

(conceived as a virtuous circle of communication, trust, commitment, understanding and outcomes,

with quick wins an important driver of the above).

KF19: The ability of urban stakeholders to fashion an integrated approach to sustainabledevelopment relies on an enabling framework of multi-level governance being set by policy makers

at the European Union and central government levels. The proliferation of funding programmes and

integrative mechanisms, paradoxically, makes this task ever more difficult; an implementation gap

results.

KF20: Consistent with our overall preference for an ensuring state model, it is important to

acknowledge the crucial role of traditional government statutory regulation and fiscal incentives as

part of the toolkit of sustainable urban development. However, research indicates a diminution in

the capacity and willingness of European municipalities to utilise these means.

KF21: The notion of governmentality in which government encourages firms and citizens through

dissemination of best practice and the use of indicators and incentivesto adapt their values and

practices to align with policy objectives is a key driver of behaviour change; an exercise in self-

discipline in which formal state sanctions are not required.

KF22: The principles of collaborative governance should be applied in the development as well as the

implementation of tools and Decision Support Software, recognising that such resources are there to

aid instead of replace the decision-making process.


What is the most important factor that would enable better integration of governance forsustainable urban development?

What is the most important factor that prevents better integration of governance for sustainable

urban development?

Do the reports key findings provide a comprehensive framework for discussing integrated

governance for sustainable urban development?

In the third break out session the questions related to this theme were:

To what extent is it possible in practice to achieve 1) consensus and 2) genuine sharing of

responsibility between stakeholders through dialogue as set out in KF11, and 3) new ways of thinking

and acting through social learning as set out in KF13? Explain. Examples?


9/23


8

What is (and what should be) the balance between different types of knowledge (e.g. scientific versus

local) applied to policy and practice for sustainable urban development? Explain. Examples?

What is (or what should be) the role of boundary objects (maps, diagrams, websites, codes, etc.) and

boundary spanners (individuals in a co-ordinating role) in building and sustaining constructive

relationships between stakeholders? Explain. Examples?

To what extent is it possible in practice to counter the lock in of unsustainable practices through the

cumulative effect of small interventions over time as a set out in KF17? Explain. Examples?

What works (or not, and in what circumstances) in respect of 1) traditional government regulation

and 2) promotion of best practice / behaviour change for sustainable urban development policy and

practice? Explain. Examples?

What is (or what should be) the role of technology and decision support software in policy and

practice for sustainable urban development? Explain. Examples?

4 Summary of structured dialogue

4.1 General principles of integrated urban management

Speed Networking:

What does the term smart green cities mean to you?

The Dialogue Caf was titled Smart Green Cities in order to explore links between Urban Nexus and

Urban API, an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based FP7 project running

concurrently, which seeks to provide urban planners with the tools needed to actively analyse, plan

and manage the urban environment (www.urbanapi.eu). Participants were asked to consider the

meaning of the term Smart Green Cities. The vast majority took a holistic view. The term smart

was, thus, defined in broad terms; that which is sustainable, efficient, equitable, integrated,

intelligent, and, of course, exploits the full potential of ICT. However, participants were reluctant to

interpret the Dialogue Caf theme purely in terms of technology. There was, certainly, a consensus

that the notion of Smart Green Cities was not reducible to this. Thus, the sustainable city was

conceived as green in that it exploited green infrastructure and natural vegetation, was ecologically

friendly, maximised energy and resource efficiency and promoted sustainable modes of transport.

Delegates defined the key outcomes of Smart Green Cities in terms of a plethora of progressivecriteria: health and quality of life, social justice and cohesion, economic dynamism and

competitiveness and the integration of the natural and urban realms. Some described this as a type

of utopia.

Do you believe that a strong political lead from public authorities is required to advance the

sustainable urban development agenda?

The question of leadership, consistent with the emphasis placed by the Synthesis Report on the

ensuring model of governance was a recurring theme of the Dialogue Caf. Participants were

unequivocal that decisive leadership was a prerequisite for integrated governance for sustainable

urban development. Indeed, leadership was emphasised all the more strongly by delegates in thecontext of the economic crisis and regime of austerity, and the need to maintain political and public
http://www.urbanapi.eu/http://www.urbanapi.eu/http://www.urbanapi.eu/http://www.urbanapi.eu/


10/23


9

support for sustainable development in the face of competing imperatives. However, participants

were very clear that leadership was an attribute primarily for galvanising the necessary multi-sector

response to climate change. That is, the role of leadership was defined primarily in terms of

promoting stakeholder involvement and engagement. Delegates argued that government and

statutory agencies did not, necessarily, have a monopoly of legitimacy or leadership capacity within

the domain of governance and that other sectors could assume a leading role. In short, participants

argued in favour of a facilitative, rather than dirigiste, form of leadership on the part of the

European Union, central and local governments.

Provide an example of successful integration of governance for sustainable urban development.

Participants provided many examples of good practice from across Europe; these are listed below

with links for further information.

Biotope Area Factorused in Berlin to ensure sufficient green infrastructure provision in new

developments.

Mitigation in Urban areas: Solutions for Innovative Cities (MUSIC)project which aims to

support partner cities to in their transition management to reduce CO2emissions.

Smart City Viennawhich is a strategic initiative encompassing a suite of projects to improve

and modernise Vienna.

Millau Viaductin France was noted for the public participation in selecting the winning

design.

Madrids General Urban Planwhich included a comprehensive consultation and aims to

improve the walking and cycling environment.

Sustainable Mobility and Public Space Planin Vitoria-Gasteiz, a demonstration city of

CIVITAS. Munichwas highlighted for the integration of public services, urban compaction policy and

green infrastructure provision; it also has a strategy for100% renewable energy by 2025.

Stockholms tenGreen Wedgesthat are bringing nature into the city region.

Integrated transport strategyin Greater Manchester which sets out a 15-year vision for

transport in the region.

Flood Risk Danubewhich is a project co-funded by the EU to facilitate transnational co-

operation in the management of flood risk.

Malmos city vision from industrial waste land to sustainable city.

Greening and urban intensification inRotterdam.

Strong leadership in urban planning inFreiburg.

The superblocksused in Barcelona to improve permeability to pedestrians.

EU-fundedQuality Urban Environments for River Corridors and Stakeholders (QUERCUS)

project in Lewisham.

TheSheffield Waterway Strategythat aims to improve the network of canals and rivers in

the city.

Provide an example of poorly integrated governance for sustainable urban development.

The technocratic approach to urban development adopted inThe Netherlands.

The lack of a national spatial framework and regional government inEngland.
http://www.grabs-eu.org/membersarea/files/berlin.pdfhttp://www.grabs-eu.org/membersarea/files/berlin.pdfhttp://www.themusicproject.eu/content/transitionmanagementhttp://www.themusicproject.eu/content/transitionmanagementhttps://smartcity.wien.at/site/en/https://smartcity.wien.at/site/en/http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/millau-viaduct/http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/millau-viaduct/http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/12/madrids-big-plan-swear-cars/7744/http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/12/madrids-big-plan-swear-cars/7744/http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/12/madrids-big-plan-swear-cars/7744/http://www.civitas.eu/content/vitoria-gasteizhttp://www.civitas.eu/content/vitoria-gasteizhttp://www.civitas.eu/http://www.civitas.eu/http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1171.pdfhttp://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1171.pdfhttp://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/mayors-voices-munich-mayor-hep-monatzeder/http://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/mayors-voices-munich-mayor-hep-monatzeder/http://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/mayors-voices-munich-mayor-hep-monatzeder/http://www.tmr.sll.se/Global/Dokument/publ/2010/2010-3_tidningen_stockholmsregionen_dense_and_green.pdfhttp://www.tmr.sll.se/Global/Dokument/publ/2010/2010-3_tidningen_stockholmsregionen_dense_and_green.pdfhttp://www.tmr.sll.se/Global/Dokument/publ/2010/2010-3_tidningen_stockholmsregionen_dense_and_green.pdfhttp://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/tfgmc/downloads/file/12/greater_manchester_integrated_transport_strategyhttp://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/tfgmc/downloads/file/12/greater_manchester_integrated_transport_strategyhttp://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/http://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/http://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development.htmlhttp://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development.htmlhttp://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/enhttp://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/enhttp://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/enhttp://www.greencity.freiburg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1174649_l2/index.htmlhttp://www.greencity.freiburg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1174649_l2/index.htmlhttp://www.greencity.freiburg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1174649_l2/index.htmlhttp://bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblockshttp://bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblockshttp://bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblockshttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage&s_ref=LIFE05%20ENV/UK/000127&area=2&yr=2005&n_proj_id=2978&cfid=16603803&cftoken=fcd000dec6ff810a-B1E4D03B-03C3-2148-460C54C1AACBE5D3&mode=print&menu=falsehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage&s_ref=LIFE05%20ENV/UK/000127&area=2&yr=2005&n_proj_id=2978&cfid=16603803&cftoken=fcd000dec6ff810a-B1E4D03B-03C3-2148-460C54C1AACBE5D3&mode=print&menu=falsehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage&s_ref=LIFE05%20ENV/UK/000127&area=2&yr=2005&n_proj_id=2978&cfid=16603803&cftoken=fcd000dec6ff810a-B1E4D03B-03C3-2148-460C54C1AACBE5D3&mode=print&menu=falsehttp://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-life-for-sheffields-waterwayshttp://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-life-for-sheffields-waterwayshttp://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-life-for-sheffields-waterwayshttp://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial-planning-in-the-netherlandshttp://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial-planning-in-the-netherlandshttp://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial-planning-in-the-netherlandshttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-planning-system-work-more-efficiently-and-effectively/supporting-pages/national-planning-policy-frameworkhttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-planning-system-work-more-efficiently-and-effectively/supporting-pages/national-planning-policy-frameworkhttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-planning-system-work-more-efficiently-and-effectively/supporting-pages/national-planning-policy-frameworkhttps://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-planning-system-work-more-efficiently-and-effectively/supporting-pages/national-planning-policy-frameworkhttp://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial-planning-in-the-netherlandshttp://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/news/new-life-for-sheffields-waterwayshttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.createPage&s_ref=LIFE05%20ENV/UK/000127&area=2&yr=2005&n_proj_id=2978&cfid=16603803&cftoken=fcd000dec6ff810a-B1E4D03B-03C3-2148-460C54C1AACBE5D3&mode=print&menu=falsehttp://bcnecologia.net/en/conceptual-model/superblockshttp://www.greencity.freiburg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1174649_l2/index.htmlhttp://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/enhttp://www.malmo.se/English/Sustainable-City-Development.htmlhttp://www.danube-floodrisk.eu/http://www.transportforgreatermanchestercommittee.gov.uk/tfgmc/downloads/file/12/greater_manchester_integrated_transport_strategyhttp://www.tmr.sll.se/Global/Dokument/publ/2010/2010-3_tidningen_stockholmsregionen_dense_and_green.pdfhttp://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/mayors-voices-munich-mayor-hep-monatzeder/http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1171.pdfhttp://www.civitas.eu/http://www.civitas.eu/content/vitoria-gasteizhttp://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/12/madrids-big-plan-swear-cars/7744/http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/millau-viaduct/https://smartcity.wien.at/site/en/http://www.themusicproject.eu/content/transitionmanagementhttp://www.grabs-eu.org/membersarea/files/berlin.pdf


11/23


10

Controversy over the increasing costs over the Stuttgart 21 train station, as summarised in

articles inThe GuardianandSpiegel Online.

Expansion ofFrankfurts airport.

LondonsClimate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy.

The lack of transport infrastructure in new developments inTirana.

The M30 motorway inMadrid.

The different visions for the city inRotterdam.

Other issues that were mentioned as examples in many areas included the lack of social

integration in new residential developments, the dependence of renewable power on

changes in government policy, the lack of authority of the EU and the lack of flexibility in

some local authorities.

Breakout session:

Question: Are the dimensions of integrated governance for sustainable urban development set out in

KF1 desirable and/or feasible in practice? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report set out an ambitious normative model of integrated governance for

sustainable urban development, summarised in Key Finding 1. We argued that it was necessary to

embed sustainability more fully into mainstream policy making so that it became the fundamental

principle for action rather than a secondary concern. An integrated approach would engage as broad

a coalition of stakeholders as possible in the discussion of a holistic set of challenges. This implies

articulation within (vertical integration) and between (horizontal integration) different sector-based

policy communities. The literature acknowledges that these dimensions are very difficult to achieve

in practice and we were keen to discuss the feasibility of the model with participants.

Participants were pessimistic about the prospects for achieving an integrated form of governance for

sustainable development as set out in the Synthesis Report. The majority were mindful of deeply

embedded structural obstacles to the realisation this goal.

Not surprisingly, delegates considered the key systemic drivers of the capitalist economy to be

money and power. In this context, it was argued, it is unrealistic to expect sustainable development

to assume a position as the defining principle of public policy. Political (i.e. electoral) and commercial

considerations dictate that investment, profit and (from the perspective of the general public)

employment and livelihoods remain unchallenged as pre-eminent societal objectives. This

dominance, it was noted, has been reinforced by the economic crisis of the past decade. These

structural constraints have prompted much discussion on sustainable development, but very little

achievement; as one participant put it, there has been a tendency to paint the city green but to

carry on as normal. Participants agreed that the systemic bias in favour economic growth would not

be challenged until public pressure for change was brought about by direct, personal and repeated

experience of the negative effects of climate change (e.g. drought, flooding). The message for

change has, to date, been disconnected from most peoples tangible experience of everyday life.

The structure of the governmental apparatus across Europe was also considered by participants to

be a key obstacle to integration. In most countries, the public sector has evolved on a sectoral basis;

to deliver clearly delineated services to the public (e.g. education, health, social care) rather than a

spatial basis to address complex wicked issues. This has enabled key actors to consolidate power in
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/stuttgart-21-failure-deliberative-democracyhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/stuttgart-21-failure-deliberative-democracyhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/stuttgart-21-failure-deliberative-democracyhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/stuttgart_21/http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/stuttgart_21/http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/stuttgart_21/http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/frankfurt-international-airport/http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/frankfurt-international-airport/http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/frankfurt-international-airport/http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/frankfurt-international-airport/https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/limiting-further-climate-changehttps://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/limiting-further-climate-changehttps://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/limiting-further-climate-changehttp://www.eltis.org/index.php?ID1=5&id=60&news_id=4283http://www.eltis.org/index.php?ID1=5&id=60&news_id=4283http://www.eltis.org/index.php?ID1=5&id=60&news_id=4283http://www.sisgeo.com/uploads/schede/madrid_M30.pdfhttp://www.sisgeo.com/uploads/schede/madrid_M30.pdfhttp://www.sisgeo.com/uploads/schede/madrid_M30.pdfhttp://www.rotterdam.nl/DSV/Document/Stadsvisie/432312_Leaflet.pdfhttp://www.rotterdam.nl/DSV/Document/Stadsvisie/432312_Leaflet.pdfhttp://www.rotterdam.nl/DSV/Document/Stadsvisie/432312_Leaflet.pdfhttp://www.rotterdam.nl/DSV/Document/Stadsvisie/432312_Leaflet.pdfhttp://www.sisgeo.com/uploads/schede/madrid_M30.pdfhttp://www.eltis.org/index.php?ID1=5&id=60&news_id=4283https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/vision-strategy/limiting-further-climate-changehttp://www.airport-technology.com/projects/frankfurt-international-airport/http://www.spiegel.de/international/topic/stuttgart_21/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/stuttgart-21-failure-deliberative-democracy


12/23


11

small kingdoms that they are often unwilling to compromise by co-operating with other

stakeholders. The problem is reinforced by the career incentives of politicians and officials who seek

advancement by demonstrating positive outcomes in their specific domain or jurisdiction. A culture

of competition rather than co-operation is, thus, engendered. This fragmented system of

governance makes possible small gains (e.g. waste management within the town hall and municipal

estate) but mitigates against the realisation of systemic change (e.g. behaviour in transport). It is

important to note, however, that some participants considered the fragmentation of the public

domain to act as a safeguard against lock in of the wrong policy. Examples cited were the

construction of now problematic and unpopular large social housing estates across Europe in the

post-war period and the, similarly universal, advocacy of diesel powered vehicles to reduce

emissions, now problematic in respect of air quality. As one delegate argued, the solution of

yesterday can be the problem of today.

Question: What is (and what should be) the balance between the modes of decision making set out in

KF2? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report considered multiple modes of policy making, summarised in Key Finding 2. The

report was structured around the typology proposed by Yvonne Rydin (2010) who distinguishes

between: government, a hierarchical exercise of formal state power through, for example, binding

regulations or direct public service provision or intervention; governance, a process of government

through enabling and exploiting the deliberative potential of partnerships and networks; and,

governmentality, a subtle exercise of power in which the state encourages business, consumers and

citizens to align their values and behaviour with public policy objectives. An integrated approach

would exploit each of these forms; direct state intervention and regulation plus the animation of

collective social action. We asked participants to debate the respective merits of these and the most

appropriate balance between them.

The basic consensus of Dialogue Caf participants was that, as advocated by the Synthesis Report, a

mix of different modes of policy making and implementation was most appropriate. The adoption of

a unitary model applicable to all citiesa one size fits all approach was rejected. Participants

were emphatic that the process of governance should differ between places according to local

context. Delegates were keen that, where possible, synergies between the different modes of

governing should be sought. However, much of the dialogue stressed the practical difficulties of

achieving these.

It was agreed that, within the system of representative democracy that prevails in Europe, the

conceptual starting point should be the hierarchical system of government. However, consistent

with the preference for a facilitative form of leadership, it was strongly argued that the formal

statutory powers of public authorities should be best used in promoting a network culture;

convincing the market, ensuring the compliance of business to societal goals, and promoting civic

engagement. In short, participants concluded, that the function of government was to implement

co-produced strategies and policies, formulated in consultation, compensating those interests that

experienced problems arising from these, and ensuring appropriate monitoring, evaluation and

feedback (a key weakness of current practice). Delegates acknowledged that there existed tensions

between traditional representative democracy and participation, not least the influence of powerful

lobby groups.


13/23


12

The complexity of the challenge of sustainable urban development, it was argued, necessitated a

new approach to decision making, which transcend the legitimacy offered by the formal democratic

mandate held by politicians. The idea of direct democracy, especially the use of issue specific

referenda as commonly used in Switzerland, was broadly supported.

Question: What is (and what should be) the role of political and professional leadership in integratedgovernance for sustainable urban development? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report advocated a model of governance consistent with the idea of the ensuring

state. This posits a decisive leadership role for public authorities, to enablegoal oriented action on

the part of government and other stakeholders, to encourage business, consumers and citizens to

act appropriately and to monitor and enforce compliance with specified norms and standards.

As noted above, leadership proved to be one of the key topics of discussion at the Dialogue Caf.

There was unanimity among participants of the central importance of leadership but considerable

disagreement about what constituted appropriate leadership. A recurring theme was the impact of

the pressures of electoral politics. These were generally considered to militate against the decisive

leadership required to fulfil the ensuring role of government advocated in the Synthesis report.

Indeed, it was argued that strong leadership necessitated taking unpopular decisions and, in the

last instance, losing votes to secure long term policy objectives. The electoral cycle, it was argued,

constituted a crucial barrier to progress, in reinforcing an already strongly embedded ethos of short-

termism.

As noted above, the majority of delegates strongly advocated a facilitative form of leadership, the

key objective of which is to animate a broad based and inclusive societal response to climate change,

engaging investors, other key players and the general public.

A crucial recurring theme of the Dialogue Caf was the influence and uneven distribution of power.

The Synthesis Report discusses a particular concept of power. The emphasis on constructing a

normative agenda of collaborative governance has meant that this model prioritises the notion of

collectivepower to(i.e. achieve stated outcomes) rather than that of the traditional idea ofpower

over. Participants argued that the sustainable urban development discourse needs to be

deconstructed in order to reveal hidden values, meanings, and power relationships. Decision making

is based on networks of power relationships that can include or exclude, increase or decrease the

power of given actors. These questions are under-emphasised within the collaborative model

discussed in the Synthesis Report.

4.2 Sustainable urban development as a wicked issue

Speed Networking:

Do you believe that advances in technology are more important than effecting long term societal

change in responding to climate change?

As discussed above, in respect of the overall Dialogue Caf theme of Smart Green Cities,

participants were clear that technology was an important, but insufficient in itself, prerequisite for

integrated governance of sustainable urban development. Technology was seen to be a means (one

of many) to meeting ends, most frequently defined in social terms. Some participants even


14/23


13

described technology as a distraction to the core work of governance, suggesting that there was a

commercially-driven agenda to prioritise a technocratic approach. More generally, however, the

utility of technology was acknowledged, not least in respect of its potential contribution to

monitoring and evaluation of climate change and societal responses to it.

Do you believe that responding to climate change is the responsibility of the individual or society?

Participants argued that the response to climate change was the responsibility of both society as a

whole as well as the individual citizen and consumer. This is not as equivocal a response as it seems.

A crucial link was made between the two domains which may be encapsulated in terms of another

of the key themes emerging from the Dialogue Caf: empowerment. Climate change was, indeed,

conceived as a societal problem, and one to which every individual must contribute to resolving but,

crucially, it was argued, individuals cannot do so in a vacuum of power and information. A multi-level

response is required, with government and local authorities setting an enabling context by taking

key decisions and setting out policies and regulation that require and facilitate action by citizens and

consumers. Most important, participants argued that the latter required transparency, guidance andassistance to respond on a fully informed basis. The provision of accessible and understandable

information was identified as a key facilitator of progress.

Do you use websites whose purpose is to disseminate good practice on sustainable urban

development? Which?

The following websites were highlighted by the participants:

AENEAS;

Apaches;

CASCADE;

CIVITAS;

CORDIS;

Ecocity Builders;

ELTIS;

Energy Cities;

EUKN;

EUROCITIES;

European Academy of the Urban Environment;

GRABS; ICLEI;

INTA;

RIVM;

SPUR;

Transition Network;

Urbact;

Urban Gateway;

URBAN-NEXUS.

In addition to these specific examples those with practical case studies, research findings and

country/city-specific websites were also highlighted.
http://www.aeneas-project.eu/?page=homehttp://www.aeneas-project.eu/?page=homehttp://www.apaches.eu/http://www.apaches.eu/http://www.cascadecities.eu/http://www.cascadecities.eu/http://www.civitas.eu/http://www.civitas.eu/http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.htmlhttp://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.htmlhttp://www.ecocitybuilders.org/http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/http://www.eltis.org/http://www.eltis.org/http://www.energy-cities.eu/http://www.energy-cities.eu/http://www.eukn.org/http://www.eukn.org/http://www.eurocities.eu/http://www.eurocities.eu/http://www.eaue.de/default.htmhttp://www.eaue.de/default.htmhttp://www.grabs-eu.org/http://www.grabs-eu.org/http://www.iclei.org/http://www.iclei.org/http://www.inta-aivn.org/en/http://www.inta-aivn.org/en/http://rivm.nl/http://rivm.nl/http://www.spur.org/about/our-mission-and-historyhttp://www.spur.org/about/our-mission-and-historyhttp://www.transitionnetwork.org/http://www.transitionnetwork.org/http://urbact.eu/http://urbact.eu/http://www.urbangateway.org/http://www.urbangateway.org/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urban-nexus.eu/www.urban-nexus.eu/http://www.urbangateway.org/http://urbact.eu/http://www.transitionnetwork.org/http://www.spur.org/about/our-mission-and-historyhttp://rivm.nl/http://www.inta-aivn.org/en/http://www.iclei.org/http://www.grabs-eu.org/http://www.eaue.de/default.htmhttp://www.eurocities.eu/http://www.eukn.org/http://www.energy-cities.eu/http://www.eltis.org/http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.htmlhttp://www.civitas.eu/http://www.cascadecities.eu/http://www.apaches.eu/http://www.aeneas-project.eu/?page=home


15/23


14

Breakout session:

Question: To what extent does sustainable urban development conform to the definition of a wicked

problem as set out in KF4, KF5 and KF6? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report conceptualised sustainable development as a textbook example of a wicked

issue. This is an elusive and insoluble challenge that is problematic in that: the nature and scope of

the problem is imprecisely defined; complications arise from the competition between diverse and

value-laden stakeholder viewpoints; and, established public policy structures and processesthe

rational-technocratic model of decision making and sectorally differentiated public policy

infrastructureprove inadequate. These problems were summarised in Key Findings 4, 5 and 6. We

were keen to test the salience of these ideas with Dialogue Caf delegates.

It was, perhaps, surprising that few Dialogue Caf delegates were familiar with the term wicked

issue, a well-established idea within public policy in the English speaking world. However, there was

broad consensus that the term wicked issue represented a useful starting point for discussions on

sustainable urban development. A key advantage was the framing of the challenge as an issue

rather than a problem as this implied that no single easily definable solution exists. The concept of

a wicked issue requires a new way of thinking that posits the absence of a single answer and the

need to think and act in terms of multiple pathways to sustainable urban development.

The majority of participants argued that the fundamental difficulty of sustainable urban

development is the challenge it presents to the cognitive capacity of stakeholders. Politicians,

officials, businesses, citizens and consumers are presented with such a volume of information, claims

and counter claims, that it is impossible for them to synthesis and act upon these. The solution, it

was argued, must be to break down the overall challenge into specific manageable tasks that actors

can understand and respond to. In terms of promoting a public response, as noted above, it was

crucial to emphasis the very personal impacts of climate change that required a response. However,

there was to embed these micro-level actions with broader societal change; as one delegate put it to

balance the broad consensus versus little dabs of colour. There was broad support for seeking to

promote mutual gains between particular interventions so that these accumulated into decisive

change; a system of systems approach.

The discussion on wicked issues brought into discussion a number of other theoretical concepts.

The most pertinent of these was diffusion of responsibility; a scenario in which individuals feel

diminished responsibility for a problem (and, therefore, less likely to take action on it) in the context

of a large group of stakeholders. Delegates considered this to be a key impediment to collective

action.

Question: To what extent does the proliferation of tools, policy frameworks and funding programmes

at European and national levels contribute to a co-ordination and implementation problem at the

urban level? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report argued that the ability of local stakeholders to integrate policy depends on a

European and national framework that enables them to do so. The absence of such a framework has

provided an important obstacle. The need for an integrated approach to the governance of

sustainable urban development is widely acknowledged but the complexity of the challenge iscompounded by the proliferation of European programmes and funding regimes tools designed to


16/23


15

integrate the various elements of sustainable development policy. The report noted the paradox

that each new mechanism is conceived and implemented separately and, thus, adds to the totality

of programmes and projects that require integration. Policy for sustainable development policy in

any city comprises a portfolio of sector-specific initiatives formulated and implemented (mostly) in

isolation. To date, therefore, sustainable development policy in Europe epitomises the rhetoric, if

not the reality, of integrated urban governance. These concerns were echoed by participants at the

Dialogue Caf.

Delegates were emphatic that there was no generalised shortage of European funds available for

sustainable urban development initiatives. Indeed, there was also consensus that certain key EU

funding streams were highly effective; INTERREG and URBACT were most frequently cited in this

respect. However, the sheer number of funds, the lack of synergy between them and their lack of

adaptability and flexibility to local contexts was widely criticised.

There was broad consensus that the nature and scope of funding available was dictated by the broad

strategic agendaoften conceived in sector specific termsof the EU rather than the specific needs

of particular places. This raised important questions of subsidiarity; who decides which the most

suitable tools are. An important consequence was the potential for conflict between funding

streamssome are spatial in focus, others are thematicand the difficulty in building

complementarities between these and between EU projects and national and local initiatives. In

short, delegates noted much duplication of effort and limited interaction between programmes and

projects. Participants also argued that local sustainable development policy had become resource led.

That is, policy was not the result of strategic thought, rather, it has been incremental, pragmatic and,

most importantly, opportunistic. Local authorities have been constrained by the need to pursue

initiatives for which funding can be obtained. The acquisition of additional resources was an implicit

objective of local policy. Where external resources were not available, local authority goals were

inevitably modest. In short, local government has lacked the autonomy to develop a strategic approach

to sustainability policy. There was widespread frustration that EU funds focused primarily on innovation.

This is not a problem in itself but the paucity of money available for the mainstreaming of successful

innovative practice arising from such projects was considered an important obstacle. The rules and

regulations of funding dictate that only new ideas are funded rather than adoption of good practice.

Finally delegates noted an unhelpful disjuncture between research and practice; a greater emphasis on

the needs of end users is required.

Delegates, thus, advocated a number of reforms to EU funding streams. These included the

rationalisation of programmes into one vision, multiple use streams that are flexible and adaptable to

local circumstances, improved monitoring and evaluation, and a renewed emphasis on immediate

quality of life outcomes.

Question: Does the challenge of climate change prompt real innovation in governance or is the

problem re-interpreted to fit with pre-existing modes of decision making? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report highlights the resistance to reform of well-established patterns of decision

making. This can be encapsulated in the idea of path dependency. It is argued that pre-existing

ways of thinking and doing structure the process and outcomes of policy, rather than new ideas and

innovation. Thus, the wicked issue of sustainability is often (re)interpreted to fit with establishedmodes of governing/governance.


17/23


16

Delegates concluded that this perspective was somewhat overstated. Indeed, some shifts in the style

of governance were noted, especially moves to softer forms, informed by innovative means of

measuring outcomes (e.g. quality of life). Fundamentally, however, participants argued that the

complexity of the challenge of climate change did require real institutional innovation was essential,

that is, to reorder the machine of politics, to reinterpret the nature and scope of growth, etc.

4.3

Towards an integrated approach

Speed Networking:

What is the most important factor that would enable better integration of governance for

sustainable urban development?

Participants proposed a diversity of key success factors for promoting integrated governance for

sustainable urban development. These can be grouped into two main themes: the mix of players

and the rules of the game. In terms of the former, the composition of active stakeholders

incorporated within the decision making process was considered decisive. Participants advocated a

highly inclusive approach. In addition to the expected participation of politicians and experts, it was

considered essential to exploit the local knowledge embedded within civil society and to engage

end users (broadly defined) in properly integrated multi-sector partnerships. In terms of the latter,

participants were keen to discuss how relationships between these key actors could be developed

and sustained. Recurring themes were the need for openness, transparency and the cultivation of

trust. This required the formulation of a co-produced long term vision to which adherence would be

ensured by communication, participation, education, and engagement. Opinions were divided on

whether the necessary cultural and behavioural changes necessary to realise more sustainable

outcomes could be delivered within the limits imposed by the existing neo-liberal economic system.A minority of participants thought not and advocated radical change; the displacement of the

current economic and political order in favour of a fundamental realignment of the relationship

between humans and nature and more equitable forms of economic governance. The majority,

however, adopted a pragmatic outlook, advocating the retention of the free market economy, but

with a rigorous, but realistic, level of regulation.

What is the most important factor that prevents better integration of governance for sustainable

urban development?

The key inhibitors of integrated governance identified by participants, not surprisingly, mirrored the

success factors noted above. Participants were especially critical of the failure to realise multi-levelgovernance (i.e. vertical integration) and also to overcome fundamental boundaries between

different stakeholders (i.e. horizontal integration). The former was attributed to the paucity of long

term vision and strategy at national level, on the one hand, and the limits to local government

funding and political autonomy, on the other. Participants were critical of the failure of public

authorities to establish transparent rules and procedures to underpin reciprocity and trust. The

latter was attributed to the apparent inability of different organisations and interest groups to co-

operate, with participants citing a lack of communication arising from language barriers and

fundamental differences of understanding between stakeholders, reinforced by an introspective

silo mentality.

Breakout session:


18/23


17

Question: To what extent is it possible in practice to achieve 1) consensus and 2) genuine sharing of

responsibility between stakeholders through dialogue as set out in KF11, and 3) new ways of thinking

and acting through social learning as set out in KF13? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report advocated a consensus-based process of governance based on collective

responsibility between stakeholders. It emphasised the need for social learning to stimulate newways of interpreting and responding to the challenge of climate change. The objective is to reach

decisions by consensus or, at least, to moderate confrontational relationships into more

collaborative ones. This is summarised in Key Finding 11. Social learning may be defined as a process

of social change in which people learn from each other in ways that can benefit wider social-

ecological systems. It stimulates a change in understanding on the part of stakeholders; embeds this

change in understanding in extensive communities of practice and social networks; and, occurs

through the mode of social interaction. This is summarised in Key Finding 13.

Broadly speaking, delegates considered that consensus and genuine sharing of responsibility was

possible, in principle, but there existed significant obstacles to its achievement in practice. One ofthe recurring themes of the Dialogue Caf was the disjuncture between the world views of scientists

and professionalsoften expressed in broad, long-term theories and visionsand those of

politicians and the general publicexpressed in terms of immediate quality of life considerations,

based on daily empirical experienceand the difficulty of reconciling these. In broad terms,

delegates pointed to a lack of understanding of the co-creation process on the part of politicians and

experts, on the one hand, and a generalised mistrust of the latter on the part of the general public,

on the other. The role of the media in managing political debate and public expectation was

considered crucial. This was especially true of local media who have a crucial role in framing very

local debates on specific issues. For example, the opposition of the local media was cited as a crucial

obstacle to the implementation of resident parking zones in Bristol and pedestrianisation in Madrid.

Participants suggested that it was often possible to forge temporary consensus in the run-up to

elections when public support for a political visions was required, but difficult to sustain this in the

longer term.

In this context, it is not surprising that delegates could cite few examples of genuine social learning.

There was a consensus that much emphasis had been placed on the education of the general public

at the expense of cultivating greater understanding on the part of businesses and business services

(accountants, lawyers, etc.). Delegates emphasised the need for strategic dialoguelistening,

learningover long time periods (e.g. 20 years) lest policy lapse into a form of homeopathy for the

city that treated symptoms of change incrementally.

Question: What is (and what should be) the balance between different types of knowledge (e.g.

scientific versus local) applied to policy and practice for sustainable urban development? Explain.

Examples?

The Synthesis Report argued that the challenge of sustainable urban development required the

exploitation of multiple forms of knowledge, including everyday knowledge. The report clearly

differentiated between data, information and knowledge. The latter was recognised as a form of

sensemaking that enhances capacity for decision making and action. Knowledge exchange is a key

driver of communicative governance, the aim of which is to develop a common understanding ofhow to improve our ability to effect positive outcomes. The report defined three types of


19/23


18

knowledge: codified scientific and technocratic knowledge; institutional knowledge, concerned

with getting things done in different modes of governance; and, local knowledge, a locally situated

form of common sense of how things normally happen.

The Dialogue Caf discussion, once again, focused on the disjuncture between scientific knowledge

built on theoretically informed, universal models of the futureand local knowledgebuilt on

particular and personal, quotidian experience. The broad consensus at the Dialogue Caf was that,

too often, a false opposition between these forms of knowledge was made and that a blend of

different inputs into decision making was required. Indeed, delegates argued that it was important

not to over-emphasise the potential contribution of local knowledge which could be biased

according to any number of influences. We have already noted the importance of the media

whose role should be to inform and facilitate open debate rather than demonisewhich was cited

as crucial. By the same token, it was argued that expert knowledge was often used to trump local

inputs in crucial political debates and that the non-correspondence between some theoretical

models (e.g. river flood modelling) and local experience threatened to undermine broad public trust

in science. The need for quick winsat the local level to maintain public support was emphasised.

This said, there was a broad consensus thatnotwithstanding the potential for ICT to enhance

public participationlocal knowledge had, indeed, been undervalued in policy making; that local

people were often involved at a late stage of the processafter key decisions had been takenand

that limited feedback of the results of consultation, when undertaken, was provided.

Interesting, and importantly, some delegates argued that the real opposition was not between

expert and local knowledge at all but the opposition between both of these and the dominant

influence of economic interests. This, once again, brought the question of power and its importance

in structuring dialogue.

Question: What is (or what should be) the role of boundary objects (maps, diagrams, websites, codes,

etc.) and boundary spanners (individuals in a co-ordinating role) in building and sustaining

constructive relationships between stakeholders? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report emphasised the importance of boundary work in bridging the gap between

different forms of participant knowledge. The report argued that there is a need for boundary work

to integrate multiple forms of knowledge, in particular the contextualised local knowledge of

practice with the generalised knowledge of scientific research. The report discussed the role of:

boundary objects, knowledge products designed to create a common framework of understanding

between stakeholders from which informed dialogue may proceed; boundary organisations,

bespoke organisations that facilitate collaboration between scientists, politicians and communities

through the generation of boundary objects; and , boundary spanners, gatekeepers who have a

dedicated responsibility to work in collaborative environments such as partnership co-ordinators to

facilitate, and service the processes of collaboration between diverse groups of interests and

agencies.

Delegates had little to say on the subject of boundary spanners other than to note the importance of

the role of the autonomous broker in facilitating engagement. However, participants were very

strongly supportive of the key role of boundary objects in these domains; to make basic

understandings visible and shared, to enable translation, communication of ideas and facilitation of

action thereupon.


20/23


19

A key theme of the Dialogue Caf throughout was that of communication. In this context, boundary

objects play a pivotal rolealthough concerns were raised about the potential for these to over-

proliferate. Delegates noted the need for stakeholders to speak the same language; that is, to

develop consistency in the understanding and use of terminology. Delegates argued that it was

essential to avoid confusion of the part of participants and that quantitative data was often

presented in a confusing manner. Participants were particularly supportive of introducing an

element of simplification into a complex and contested debate. It was considered that the use of

boundary objectsmaps seemed to be the most popular toolto ensure stakeholders each had the

same points of reference in discussion. This was considered vital in ensuring understanding of

political visions and influencing behaviour. There was a broad consensus that planners should be

open to new forms of mindcraft; that is, games, boundary objects and simulations to promote

dialogue and facilitate new interactions between interests.

Question: To what extent is it possible in practice to counter the lock in of unsustainable practices

through the cumulative effect of small interventions over time as a set out in KF17? Explain.

Examples?

The Synthesis Report argued in favour of a progressive incremental approach to establishing

pathways to sustainable development, summarised in Key Finding 17. It was arguedthat the key to

responding to the super wicked problem is to seek policies that bind future generations through

identifying and connecting chains of events that shape the future. In this model, small steps

accumulate to produce significant results over time. Big bang policies may, indeed, result in

paradigmatic change and can certainly lead to important and path dependent trajectories, but they

have proven hard to sell politically and may generate significant opposition. Policy makers must

develop interventions that will endure, require targeted populations change behaviour, and expand

the cohort of population benefitting from the intervention.

Participants were able to cite a number of small, connected projects that were, in their view difficult

to ignore and constituted part of a strategic approach. These included: the Soli Association Food for

Life project, safe routes to schools, home zones, employer incentives, guerrilla gardening and other

NGO/community-led initiatives. However, delegates were clear that for a real step change, higher

level leadership was essential. Indeed, it was argued that government plays a role in four key

domains: visionagendaexperimentsacceleration.

Question: What works (or not, and in what circumstances) in respect of 1) traditional government

regulation and 2) promotion of best practice / behaviour change for sustainable urban development

policy and practice? Explain. Examples?

Notwithstanding the emphasis on collaborative governance, the Synthesis Report reaffirmed the

important of traditional regulation. It was argued that, if collaboration is insufficient to prompt

change, rules, regulations, sanctions and incentives must be the key drivers. The report observed

that formal regulation and tax concessions can influence positive change but only if informed by a

very clear understanding of the social context in which they are deployed. Past policy measures have

produced uneven, even dysfunctional, results for failing to recognise this. The objective of

governmentality, on the other hand, is to frame stakeholder thoughts and deeds so that they deliver

policy goals on behalf of government while pursuing these outcomes for their own purposes.


21/23


20

Participants acknowledged that formal regulation was sometimes necessary (e.g. prohibition of

building in flood risk areas). However, there was general consensus that regulation had to be

reasonable, consistent over time and place, and appropriately controlled and monitored. It was also

argued that appropriate regulation must be based on openness and information to those affected. If

used appropriately, regulation, it was considered could for the basis for developing good practice, by

accepting diversity.

Delegates argued that it was inappropriate to speak in terms of best practice as this implied a single

best solution to a complex problem. In respect of good practice, it was considered crucial to

understand the conditions under which a project might work. A nuanced balance sheet of projects

emphasising the benefits and advantagesis required to justify the citing of examples as good

practice; what makes them such? It is well known that people respond to incentives e.g. in respect

of health, economy, personal responsibility, reputation, etc.but less about which work and in what

circumstances? Delegates considered it important to develop new types of stimuli: using mobile

telephone appse.g. to measure air quality, compile data, etc. - the internet, TED talks. This would

create a new norm of citizens engaging in science and data collection, giving these a human factor.

Question: What is (or what should be) the role of technology and decision support software in policy

and practice for sustainable urban development? Explain. Examples?

The Synthesis Report argued that integrated data and tools have a significant role to play in the way

our cities are managed. However, they must be developed and used appropriately in line with the

principles of effective governance outlined in previous sections. The limitations of tools such as

decision support systems should be recognised; they are to provide information and evidence to

support the decision-making process.

As discussed above, Dialogue Caf participants were enthusiastic about the potential of newtechnologies (in the broadest sense) to assist the response to climate change but were unconvinced

that these represented a solution in themselves. Delegates cites numerous examples of the role of

technology in public engagement (e.g. Hamburg First) and generating data in respect of distance to

public transport, air and water quality (e.g. KLIMA LOTSE). However, it was noted that, in the last

instance, people take decisions and that technology is no substitute for face-to-face contact. There

was a general consensus that the lower the ease of use threshold, the greater the likelihood of

public engagement. Indeed, it was noted that even simple data can have a significant impact on

public and political opinion.

5 Conclusions

5.1 General principles of integrated urban management

Dialogue Caf delegates adopted a holistic definition of the event theme Smart Green Cities. This

identified technological innovation as an important, but insufficient, prerequisite for change. The

desired policy outcomes were expressed in progressive, mostly socially oriented, terms.

Participants considered decisive leadership to be a key success factor. However, there was a strong

preference for facilitativethat is, enabling others to take actionrather than centralised, dirigisteforms of leadership.


22/23


21

The dimensions of integrated governance set out in the Synthesis Report were considered very

ambitious. Delegates argued that the dominant influences on political (and public) priorities were

economic, rather than environmental. This bias was unlikely to be challenged unless and until people

experienced directly the negative effects of climate change.

The structure of government apparatusalong thematic, sectoral based lineswas identified as a

key obstacle to integration. This form encourages competition rather than co-operation, especially in

the context of increased demand for diminishing governmental financial resources.

Delegates argued in favour of a mix of governing forms, rejecting a one size fits all approach. The

basic building block identified was the formal, hierarchical process of government. However, this

should have, as its key objective, the promotion of business and civic engagement; governance.

The impact of the electoral cycle was identified as a key impediment to long term thinking and

action. Participants argued that strong leader must be prepared to take difficult decisions and, if

necessary, to court electoral unpopularity.

Participants considered the uneven distribution of power and its influence to be a key problem. It

was clear that, notwithstanding formal process of partnership and participation, some stakeholders

enjoyed privileged access and influence upon policy makers.

5.2 Sustainable development as a wicked issue

As noted above, delegates considered technological innovation to represent a means to an end,

rather than an end in itself.

Climate change was defined as both a societal and individual challenge. However, there was

consensus that individuals were in need of empowerment, defined as provision of the necessary

information base to enable informed personal and household choices.

Delegates were receptive to the idea of conceiving sustainable development as wicked issues as this

emphasised the need to think in terms of multiple pathways rather than single solutions.

A key difficulty highlighting in the Dialogue Caf discussion was the challenge that climate change

poses for the cognitive limits of humans. It was argued that breaking down the bigger issue into

discrete, manageable problems, but embedding these within a strategic responsea system of

systems approach was appropriate.

There was a broad consensus that there was no general lack of European and state financial support

for sustainable urban development. Participants argued that there was a risk of an implementation

gap arising from the proliferation of European and national funding programmes and projects, the

lack of synergy between them and their different lines of accountability.

Participants expressed frustration that the rules and regulations of European funding programmes

required an emphasis on one-off investment in innovation rather than on-going support for the

broader rolling-out of productive ideas emanating from these innovative projects; only new ideas

were deemed worthy of funding.


23/23


22

It was considered that new forms of soft governance were emerging in Europe, underpinned by

more holistic, and especially qualitative, indicators of well-being. However, the complexity of the

challenge of climate change necessitated a genuine step change in the reform of government

processes and structures.

5.3 Towards an integrated approach

The key success factors for integrated governance of sustainable urban development,delegates

concluded, were the composition of stakeholders engagedwith participants favouring a very

inclusive approachand the rules and regulations of partnership. Delegates argued very strongly in

favour of openness and transparency as a prerequisite to generating the necessary levels of trust to

ensure success. The key obstacle, not surprisingly, was the failure to achieve these ideals.

Delegates were pessimistic in respect of achieving genuine consensus, collective responsibility and

social learning. The key problem, it was argued, were the differing world views of politicians,

technocrats, business and citizens. There was, it was argued, a generalised lack of understanding of

the process of co-production required to bridge boundaries between different stakeholder groups.

It was argued that it is important not to over-emphasise the potential contribution of local

knowledge as this was subject to a variety of influences, not all benign, or the willingness and

capacity of citizens to become involved. That said, participants considered that local knowledge had

been undervalued in the past. Importantly, there was a general consensus that economic interests,

in the last instance, were afforded a higher importance than either technocratic or local knowledge.

A crucial message of the Dialogue Caf was the need for clear and concise communication between

policy makers, on the one hand, and businesses, consumers and citizens, on the other. Delegateswere enthused by the potential of boundary objects to bridge the gaps between stakeholder

viewpoints and, crucially, to simplify and engender collective understanding of the terminology used

in decision making.

Participants were keen to ensure that the cumulative effect of small interventions was appropriately

harnesses by a flexible strategic framework; a progressive incremental approach.

There was little opposition at the Dialogue Caf to formal government regulation as long as this is

open, transparent, reasonable and losers

Documents

Integrated Governance Follow Up Report Draft