Informed Cities Forum 2011 Project Findings David McGuinness

  • 247 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
247
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Naples, Italy 26 October 2011PRIMUS/Informed Cities- A summary presentation of the findings of the explorativeapplication Dave McGuinness Northumbria University david.mcguinness@northumbria.ac.uk
  • 2. 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 government in using tools for sustainability?• PRIMUS project - Typology of tools• Exploratory application – monitoring tools, LE21 & UEE• Conclusion: informing emerging tools
  • 3. 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.• 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
  • 4. 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 tool2. Data is not available or accessible3. 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
  • 5. 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 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)
  • 6. 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 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’
  • 7. 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• 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
  • 8. Problems (issues/barriers) within the brokerage process• Asymmetries between research and policy• Networks /communities of practice - provide the opportunity 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
  • 9. Brokerage – problems & issuesEuropean Commission (2008) report Scientific Evidencefor Policy Makers, identifies 3 major categories:– 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)
  • 10. Typology of Tools (adapted from Jensen and Elle (2007)Type of Tool Nature of ToolProcess 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 checklistsCalculation 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 methodsAssessment 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 discussionsMonitoring Tools Tools for the selection of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring and policy formulation on sustainability. Also includes green accounts
  • 11. Cities that used Local Evaluation 21 (LE21) 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
  • 12. 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, FinlandAmsterdam, Netherlands Timisoara, Romania Valjevo, Serbia Zaragoza, Spain Leicester, UK Vranje, Serbia Genoa, Italy Munich, Germany Liepaja, LatviaRotterdam, 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
  • 13. 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 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