PRIMUS/Informed Cities

Naples, Italy26 October 2011

PRIMUS/Informed Cities- A summary presentation of the findings of the explorative application

Dave McGuinness

Northumbria University

david.mcguinness@northumbria.ac.uk

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