Follow-up Report

INTEGRATED URBAN
GOVERNANCE

WP6

The 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

Page of 23

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

Contents
1

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

1.1

Audience ................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2

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

1.3

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

1.4

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 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

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

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

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

1 About this report

1.1 Audience
This 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 collective 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 the
discussions from each dialogue session in turn before finally offering some concluding remarks.
2

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 Introduction
This Follow-up Report summarises the URBAN NEXUS Dialogue Caf in Bristol, UK on 1st to 3rd April
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: the Synthesis Report (SR), programme and keynote presentations can be
downloaded from the Urban Nexus website www.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
3

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 types e.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 to you?
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?

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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

The key findings from the Synthesis Report for this theme were:
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 dialogue a 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.
In the Speed Networking session the questions related to this theme were:
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?

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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

3.3 Towards an integrated approach

The key findings from the Synthesis Report for this theme were:
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 building
governance 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. An
impenetrable 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
6

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 key
challenge 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 sustainable
development 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 incentives to adapt their values and
practices to align with policy objectives is a key driver of behaviour change; an exercise in selfdiscipline 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.
In the Speed Networking session the questions related to this theme were:
What is the most important factor that would enable better integration of governance for
sustainable 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?
7

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 progressive
criteria: 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 the
context of the economic crisis and regime of austerity, and the need to maintain political and public
8

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 Factor used 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 CO2 emissions.
Smart City Vienna which is a strategic initiative encompassing a suite of projects to improve
and modernise Vienna.
Millau Viaduct in France was noted for the public participation in selecting the winning
design.
Madrids General Urban Plan which included a comprehensive consultation and aims to
improve the walking and cycling environment.
Sustainable Mobility and Public Space Plan in Vitoria-Gasteiz, a demonstration city of
CIVITAS.
Munich was highlighted for the integration of public services, urban compaction policy and
green infrastructure provision; it also has a strategy for 100% renewable energy by 2025.
Stockholms ten Green Wedges that are bringing nature into the city region.
Integrated transport strategy in Greater Manchester which sets out a 15-year vision for
transport in the region.
Flood Risk Danube which is a project co-funded by the EU to facilitate transnational cooperation in the management of flood risk.
Malmos city vision from industrial waste land to sustainable city.
Greening and urban intensification in Rotterdam.
Strong leadership in urban planning in Freiburg.
The superblocks used in Barcelona to improve permeability to pedestrians.
EU-funded Quality Urban Environments for River Corridors and Stakeholders (QUERCUS)
project in Lewisham.
The Sheffield Waterway Strategy that 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 in The Netherlands.

The lack of a national spatial framework and regional government in England.
9

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

Controversy over the increasing costs over the Stuttgart 21 train station, as summarised in
articles in The Guardian and Spiegel Online.
Expansion of Frankfurts airport.
Londons Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy.
The lack of transport infrastructure in new developments in Tirana.
The M30 motorway in Madrid.
The different visions for the city in Rotterdam.
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
10

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 cities a 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.
11

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 integrated
governance 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 enable goal 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 shorttermism.
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
collective power to (i.e. achieve stated outcomes) rather than that of the traditional idea of power
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
12

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 and
assistance 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.
13

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 processes the
rational-technocratic model of decision making and sectorally differentiated public policy
infrastructure prove 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 is
compounded by the proliferation of European programmes and funding regimes tools designed to
14

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 agenda often conceived in sector specific terms of 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
streams some are spatial in focus, others are thematic and 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 established
modes of governing/governance.
15

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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-level
governance (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 cooperate, 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:
16

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 new
ways 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 socialecological 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 of
the recurring themes of the Dialogue Caf was the disjuncture between the world views of scientists
and professionals often expressed in broad, long-term theories and visions and those of
politicians and the general public expressed in terms of immediate quality of life considerations,
based on daily empirical experience and 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 dialogue listening,
learning over 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
sense making 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 of
how to improve our ability to effect positive outcomes. The report defined three types of
17

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 future and local knowledge built 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 demonise which 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 wins at the local level to maintain public support was emphasised.
This said, there was a broad consensus that notwithstanding the potential for ICT to enhance
public participation local knowledge had, indeed, been undervalued in policy making; that local
people were often involved at a late stage of the process after key decisions had been taken and
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.
18

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

A key theme of the Dialogue Caf throughout was that of communication. In this context, boundary
objects play a pivotal role although concerns were raised about the potential for these to overproliferate. 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 objects maps seemed to be the most popular tool to 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 argued that 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: vision agenda experiments acceleration.
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.
19

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 advantages is 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 apps e.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 new
technologies (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 facilitative that is, enabling others to take action rather than centralised, dirigiste
forms of leadership.
20

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 apparatus along thematic, sectoral based lines was 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 response a 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.
21

URBAN-NEXUS WP6 Synthesis Report. Integrated Urban Governance

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 engaged with participants favouring a very
inclusive approach and 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. Delegates
were 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 suitably compensated. Delegates considered that for
ideas of governmentality to be successful, business, consumers and citizens needed to be
empowered in the sense as set out above; provided with appropriate information to make informed
choices.

22