• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Informed Cities Forum 2011 Project Findings Sam Grönholm
 

Informed Cities Forum 2011 Project Findings Sam Grönholm

on

  • 488 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
488
Views on SlideShare
488
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Informed Cities Forum 2011 Project Findings Sam Grönholm Informed Cities Forum 2011 Project Findings Sam Grönholm Presentation Transcript

    • Naples, Italy 26 October 2011Local evaluation 21- A summary presentation of the findings of the explorativeapplication Sam Grönholm Åbo Akademi University sam.gronholm@abo.fi
    • Local Evaluation 21 (LE21) Offers local governments an opportunity to self assess their localprocess towards sustainable development via an internet- basedquestionnaire that is available in 20 different languages The basis of the LE21 evaluation questionnaire is ten evaluation criteria,which encompasses different aspects of the local process for sustainabledevelopment The intention of the LE21 tool is to facilitate local governments to worktowards sustainable development by identifying areas of challenges andprogress
    • Explorative application of LE21 The 57 local governments that applied LE21 represent 18 Europeancountries The local governments that have applied LE21 are generally cities withless than 250,000 inhabitants For the evaluation the local governments that applied LE21 weredivided into four regional groups because of contextual and structuraldifferences in Europe
    • Northern Europe Eastern Europe 1. Aalborg, Denmark 1. Bydgoszcz, Poland 2. Copenhagen, Denmark 2. Chrudim, Czech Republic 3. Helsingborg, Sweden 3. Jaworze, Poland 4. Helsinki, Finland 4. Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary 5. Kaunas, Lithuania 5. Odorheiu Secuiesc, Romania 6. Kolding, Denmark 6. Sfântu Gheorghe, Romania 7. Kuopio, Finland 7. Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia 8. Liepaja, Latvia 8. Subotica, Serbia 9. Odense, Denmark 9. Świętochłowice, Poland 10. Panevezys, Lithuania 10. Timi oara, Romania 11. Stockholm, Sweden 11. Užice, Serbia 12. Vantaa, Finland 12. Valjevo, Serbia 13. Växjö, Sweden 13. Vranje, Serbia Western Europe Southern Europe 1. Aberdeen, United Kingdom 1. Almada, Portugal 2. Augsburg, Germany 2. Arahal, Spain 3. Dublin, Ireland 3. Azuqueca de Henares, Spain 4. Eichenau, Germany 4. Barcelona, Spain 5. Freiburg, Germany 5. Bolzano, Italy 6. Geneva, Switzerland 6. Faro, Portugal 7. Leicester, United Kingdom 7. Granada, Spain 8. Münster, Germany 8. Granollers, Spain9. Newcastle, United Kingdom 9. Naples, Italy10. Plymouth, United Kingdom 10. Parma, Italy 11. Potsdam. Germany 11. Ravenna, Italy12. Saint Hilaire de Riez, France 12. Rimini, Italy 13. Sheffield, United Kingdom 13. Saragossa, Spain 14. Stadt Neu-Ulm, Germany 14. Turin, Italy 15. Trier, Germany 15. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain 16. York, United Kingdom
    • General findings The summary of the general findings of the explorative application ispresented based upon the ten evaluation criteria which are the basis of theevaluation These criteria are: political commitment, stability, resources, implementation management, local relevance participation, partnership, awareness integrated approach, progress
    • Political commitment Yes In general local governments are politically committed to the localprocess for Sustainable Development (SD)Stability Yes and no Local governments’ ambition to manage the work on SD is notreflected from a financial point of view, the work does not have a stableand a long term financial commitment from the local governments
    • Resources No Local governments have in general not regularly provided sufficient resources for managing and implementing SDImplementation management Yes and no On a general level the local action plan is being implemented, albeitto what extent varies. Northern and some Southern cities implement to ahigh extent, but most Western and Eastern cities only to some extent
    • Most local governments utilize locally developed indicators tomonitor progress. Nationally developed indicators are in particularused by Western cities, whilst European common indicators are mainlyused among Eastern and Southern local governmentsLocal relevance Yes The local process for SD has generally included a detailedassessment of local priority concerns. Usually these concerns areaddressed, although the extent to which this occurs varies. Southern and Eastern cities are especially active in addressing their concerns
    • Participation No Local governments have not managed to integrate stakeholders andtheir perspectives into the local process for SD. Cities do howevergenerally have the capacity and the structure to involve stakeholdersPartnership Yes and no Local governments are generally active in collaborating on issuesrelated to SD, but these partnerships are seldom sufficiently formalizedand efficient
    • Awareness Yes and no Local governments do in general communicate on relevant SDissues. But, cities provide only occasionally training for their staff and to alower extent to councilors and stakeholders. Western cities are usuallymore passive than others in providing training
    • Integrated approach No Even if the majority of local governments state that the local processfor SD has to some extent changed the ways of working within the city, e.g.interdepartmental linkages, cross-departmental joint projects and workinggroups, the work on SD is generally not fully integrated andmainstreamed into local plans, strategies and actions Local governments undertake occasional, sometimes even limited,assessments of how sustainable development is incorporated into localpolitics
    • Progress Yes The local process for sustainable development has initiated newactivities and policy changes that cover a broad range of SD work whichhas been categorized into areas of concern, e.g. energy, natural resource,waste and pollution management Most Northern, Western and Southern cities have experienced abroad range of policy changes across many fields (global climate protection,land use, mobility, urban mobility tools), however the changes withinEastern cities have been more limited, and included a few major areas suchas the local economy and social cohesion policies