Date post: | 07-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | iclei-sustainability-management-urban-governance |
View: | 359 times |
Download: | 1 times |
PRIMUS/Informed Cities
Naples, Italy26 October 2011
PRIMUS/Informed Cities- A summary presentation of the findings of the explorative application
Dave McGuinness
Northumbria University
What the presentation will cover:
• Why do cities use tools for sustainability?
• Why do cities not use the existing tools?
• How can researchers/research assist local • How can researchers/research assist local government in using tools for sustainability?
• PRIMUS project - Typology of tools
• Exploratory application – monitoring tools, LE21 & UEE
• Conclusion: informing emerging tools
Why do cities use tools for urban sustainability?
• Tools - make ill defined concept like sustainable
development more manageable & quantifiable
• Policy tools and indicator sets can turn the general
concept of sustainability into action.concept of sustainability into action.
• Tools are essential monitoring aids to assess progress
towards a more sustainable future
• Allow local government to benchmark their performance
• Jensen and Elle (2007:235) observe, ‘...what gets
measured gets managed’
• Occasionally cities are obliged to use tools
Why do cities not use existing tools for urban sustainability?
Our research and literature highlighted 5 key reasons:
1. Little or no knowledge of specific tool
2. Data is not available or accessible
3. Issues around a lack of legitimacy, reliability and 3. Issues around a lack of legitimacy, reliability and
transparency (plethora of tools; which is correct tool to
use?)
4. The Tool is too complicated and/or requires too many
resources (economic climate)
5. Issues about motivation and (political) openness on part
of local government
Additional issues/problems with existing tools
• Tool use as part of longitudinal monitoring process - cities
anxious that tools would be maintained and could be used
repeatedly over successive years (not always the case)
• External legitimisation, authorisation, ‘label of • External legitimisation, authorisation, ‘label of
sustainability’ (e.g. European Green Capital, Covenant of
Mayors)
• Flexibility of generic tools to respond to local/national
context
• To some extent lack of flexibility being tackled with
emerging tools (e.g. RFSC)
Emerging tools - Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities
(RFSC, 2011)
• ‘As an open and flexible instrument, the reference
framework leaves it to the decision-makers to pick and choose what suits their political, geographic, economic, environmental and social situation. Some economic, environmental and social situation. Some elements will be similar for many cities, others may be very different. Therefore, it is relevant to highlight that the reference framework is a toolkit to be adapted according to the particular situation of the
city or municipality’
How can research assist local government in using tools for sustainability?
• Definition of knowledge brokerage
• Knowledge brokers (intermediaries), facilitate lasting
collaboration between academics, policymakers & key
stakeholders stakeholders
• Promote the use of ‘scientific’ research by non-academics
• Policy context –EC Workshop (2007) “Research for
Sustainable Development – How to enhance connectivity”
• FP7 funded suite of projects commissioned to explore
connectivity research and policy – PRIMUS,
RESPONDER, CORPUS, etc
Problems (issues/barriers) within the brokerage process
• Asymmetries between research and policy
• Networks /communities of practice - provide the
opportunity for knowledge transfer to take placeopportunity for knowledge transfer to take place
• Difference between codified and tacit knowledge
• Real effective transfer of tacit knowledge and mutual
learning only takes place under conditions of trust, reciprocity and mutual understanding
Brokerage – problems & issues
European Commission (2008) report Scientific Evidence
for Policy Makers, identifies 3 major categories:
– Contextual – policy makers want readable practical – Contextual – policy makers want readable practical
actions do academics always provide this
– Structural – policy timescale, electoral cycles (short
term)
– Cultural (clash) – normative (researchers) vs
pragmatic (policy makers)
Typology of Tools (adapted from Jensen and Elle (2007)
Type of Tool Nature of Tool
Process Guides Tools about how to manage a project or policy on sustainability:
• Which phases to go through
• How to involve stakeholders
• Types of tools to use
• How to analyse situation, etc
Examples include: frameworks, environmental assessments, policies,
strategies, programs and checklists
Calculation Tools Tools for calculating the environmental outcome from different types of
solutions, products or procedures, in different sectors.
Examples include: Life Cycle Analysis, economic and social evaluation tools,
system simulation tools and other environmental calculation methods
Assessment Methods Tools to weight different aspects of sustainability (environmental, economic
and social), in order to illustrate differences of priorities between different
solutions
Examples include multi-criteria assessment tools, evaluation procedures,
surveys and public discussions
Monitoring Tools Tools for the selection of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring and policy
formulation on sustainability.
Also includes green accounts
Cities that used Local Evaluation 21 (LE21)
Northern Europe
1. Aalborg, Denmark 2. Copenhagen, Denmark 3. Helsingborg, Sweden 4. Helsinki, Finland 5. Kaunas, Lithuania 6. Kolding, Denmark 7. Kuopio, Finland 8. Liepaja, Latvia
9. Odense, Denmark 10. Panevezys, Lithuania 11. Stockholm, Sweden
Eastern Europe
1. Bydgoszcz, Poland 2. Chrudim, Czech Republic
3. Jaworze, Poland 4. Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary 5. Odorheiu Secuiesc, Romania 6. Sfântu Gheorghe, Romania 7. Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia
8. Subotica, Serbia 9. Świętochłowice, Poland 10. Timi�oara, Romania
11. Užice, Serbia 11. Stockholm, Sweden 12. Vantaa, Finland 13. Växjö, Sweden
11. Užice, Serbia 12. Valjevo, Serbia 13. Vranje, Serbia
Western Europe
1. Aberdeen, United Kingdom 2. Augsburg, Germany 3. Dublin, Ireland
4. Eichenau, Germany 5. Freiburg, Germany 6. Geneva, Switzerland
7. Leicester, United Kingdom 8. Münster, Germany
9. Newcastle, United Kingdom 10. Plymouth, United Kingdom
11. Potsdam. Germany 12. Saint Hilaire de Riez, France 13. Sheffield, United Kingdom 14. Stadt Neu-Ulm, Germany
15. Trier, Germany 16. York, United Kingdom
Southern Europe
1. Almada, Portugal 2. Arahal, Spain
3. Azuqueca de Henares, Spain 4. Barcelona, Spain 5. Bolzano, Italy 6. Faro, Portugal 7. Granada, Spain 8. Granollers, Spain 9. Naples, Italy 10. Parma, Italy 11. Ravenna, Italy 12. Rimini, Italy
13. Saragossa, Spain 14. Turin, Italy
15. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Cities that used Urban Ecosystem Europe (UEE)
Big Cities (500,000+) Medium Cities (170,000+) Small Cities (22,000+)
Barcelona, Spain Antwerp, Belgium Ravenna, Italy
Prague, Czech Republic Bristol, UK Ferrara, Italy
Torino, Italy Bologna, Italy Helsingborg, Sweden
Naples, Italy Firenze, Italy Bolzano, Italy
Stockholm, Sweden Bydgoszcz, Poland Kuopio, Finland
Amsterdam, Netherlands Timisoara, Romania Valjevo, Serbia
Zaragoza, Spain Leicester, UK Vranje, Serbia
Genoa, Italy Munich, Germany Liepaja, LatviaGenoa, Italy Munich, Germany Liepaja, Latvia
Rotterdam, Netherlands Augsburg, Germany Vaxjo, Sweden
Helsinki, Finland Plymouth, UK Sfintu Gheorghe, Romania
Glasgow, UK Vitoria Gasteiz, Spain Granollers, Spain
Nantes, France Granada, Spain Faro, Portugal
Poznan, Poland Bordeaux, France Knurow, Poland
Bremen, Germany Porto, Portugal Chrudim, Czech Republic
Sheffield, Uk Vantaa, Finland
Copenhagen, Denmark Aalborg, Denmark
Dresden, Germany Odense, Denmark
Dublin, Ireland Parma, Italy
Nuremberg, Germany Turku, Finland
Oeiras, Portugal
Conclusion: lessons and informing emerging tools
• Cities want and need an element of flexibility in
any tools that are developed
• Importance of continuity of tools – no good if tool
dies when funding ceasesdies when funding ceases
• Emerging issues on the political agenda – quality
of life/happiness, need to be addressed
• Collaboration between teams developing tools
and end user remains essential