The Agenda of Urban Sustainable Development Initiatives: Challenges, Goals, and Actions Across Policy Areas

Abstract

Problems to solve, objectives, and policy actions are the main components of the policy agenda of local strategies. The European framework for sustainable urban development sustains that urban policy initiatives have to pay attention to five main policy sectors to promote sustainable urban development: physical space, economic development, social inclusion, environment, and governance. Applying the CUPPA approach, this chapter analyses the relevance of these five policy sectors as problems, objectives, and policy actions in local projects. Comparing URBAN and URBANA Initiatives, the chapter shows the growing importance of environmental and governance issues. Moreover, the comparison shows a change in the policy frame of URBAN and URBANA programmes from the classical ‘neighbourhood revitalisation’ (centred on physical space and social inclusion) to the current ‘sustainable neighbourhoods’ frame (more comprehensive portfolios across policy sectors and a more important role to community).

Introduction

The idea of sustainable urban development emphasises the revitalisation of urban areas to improve their liveability by reducing environmental impact and promoting innovation. It seeks to maximise economic and social benefits by generating synergies between different areas of development. The centrality of cities to the global sustainability challenge is widely recognised; for example, one of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is dedicated explicitly to cities: ‘Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (SDG 11).

The EU Urban Agenda considers cities as key actors in promoting sustainable development, solving environmental challenges, and ensuring a good quality of life for their citizens. And this, in particular, means integrating different areas of public intervention: public spaces, green economy, social and environmental justice, citizen participation, community initiative, renewable energies, sustainable mobility, housing planning, etc. In other words, it is about combining, in the design of urban policies, different sectors of public intervention from the perspective of a healthy, green, inclusive, circular, and resilient city.

This chapter studies the policy agenda proposed by projects included in the Spanish URBAN and URBANA initiatives (22 and 42 cases, respectively). We will analyse the public intervention sectors included in the design of projects as problems and challenges to solve, objectives, and policy actions related to the main dimensions of sustainable urban development defined by the EU. Specifically, we will try to provide evidence about two main questions: do these policy sectors resemble the idea of sustainable urban development promoted by the EU?, there are relevant differences between URBAN and URBANA initiatives?.

Analysing Urban Development Agendas: The Relevance of Different Policy Sectors of Intervention as Problems, Objectives, and Policy Actions

Interventions to promote territorial or urban development suppose a ‘notion’—an idea—about a pattern of change that would like to be promoted according to the vision about challenges to solve, objectives to attain, and policy actions to be implemented. These aspects are the main elements of the policy agenda planned in local projects: the policy issues that should be solved through specific policy actions to promote the achievement of the development goals established.

Urban sustainable development implies interventions to promote patterns of change that balance different development goals. The literature on this issue normally distinguishes four broad goals or dimensions: spatial, economic, social, and environmental. These main dimensions are also included as primary goals in the idea of sustainable urban development promoted by the United Nations (Klopp & Petretta, 2017; Simon et al., 2016). These main dimensions are also included as primary goals in the idea of sustainable urban development promoted by the EU (Medeiros, 2016). Specifically, based on these ideas, the EU proposed in 2015 the Framework of Reference for Sustainable Cities (RFSC), as a policy frame to promote sustainability in cities and provide a ‘European vision’ for urban policy oriented towards the urban sustainable development idea (European Commission, 2015). This framework of reference has 30 objectives organised in five dimensions: spatial, economic, social, environmental, and governance. A sustainable urban initiative should show a balanced pattern among goals across these five dimensions.

Based on this reference framework established by the EU, we have defined six dimensions that suppose different policy sectors or policy intervention areas, including specific issues. The spatial dimension includes issues relating to public space, basic urban infrastructure and services, mobility, accessibility, habitability, heritage, both tangible and intangible, and even natural space, along with other aspects related to the territory and the physical environment. The economic dimension includes economic activity as a general issue and specific activities and sectors such as the promotion and development of local commerce, tourism, cultural production and consumption, and leisure and entertainment industries. Classic sectors such as industry and construction are also included, as well as innovation and technology development. The social dimension corresponds to social integration and welfare, including classical welfare policies (such as employment, education, health, housing, poverty, and dependent people), alongside other aspects more related to specific groups (for instance, young, older people, gender, ethnic minorities, immigration, …), and specific problems (vandalism, crime, drugs, …).

The environmental dimension includes three groups of issues: pollution (toxic emissions, waste, or even noise), the circular economy and recycling, and energy efficiency, including renewable and alternative energies but also consumption reduction as another action aimed at energy efficiency. These aspects are grouped together in the area we have called environmental sustainability. Governance includes four main issues: community life as relations among residents, citizen involvement in different forms of public and political participation, collaborative processes between public and non-public actors to define or implement public policies and initiatives, and innovations to improve public administration and service provision. Finally, based on documentation analysis, we have considered the need to include a specific area that accounts for demographic dynamics. In particular, aspects related to population loss, population growth, infancy and ageing populations, dependency rate, and other elements linked to demographic dynamics and composition of places under intervention.

In order to analyse and compare the intervention agendas of local projects, the CUPPA methodology tries to identify the relevance of the previous dimensions and issues in project design documentation. Specifically, issues and dimensions are identified as problems to solve, established objectives, and policy actions planned to attain them. To know the relevance of issues and dimensions, that is to say, their centrality to understanding the project agenda, a five-point scale is applied with the following categories: (1) Does not appear, (2) Appears but is not relevant to understanding the project agenda, (3) Although not essential, without it, the project agenda cannot be understood, (4) It very relevant to understanding the project agenda, and (5) It is central to understand the policy agenda proposed by the project, without it, it is impossible to understand the proposed policy agenda. This analysis provides evidence about the relevance of issues and dimensions included in each project and, therefore, the possibility of carrying out comparisons among them.¹

The Urban Development Agenda: The Relevance of Challenges, Objectives, and Policy Actions

Have the abovementioned dimension the same relevance in project diagnosis, objectives, and action plans?, is the pattern similar for URBAN and URBANA Programmes? The mean of the relevance scale has been computed for each dimension. The difference between programmes has been calculated as effect sizes applying the Hedges g index (see detailed results in this chapter annex). In addition to the average for each dimension, the most relevant specific issues in each are also indicated below.

The main findings show that the projects focus their diagnoses more on substantive rather than procedural orientations. The physical space stands out, with an average of 4.42. The most relevant specific problems are the lack of parks and green areas, the unattractiveness of the urban fabric, dwellings and buildings in bad conditions, and limited mobility and accessibility. In the second place, the diagnoses stand out in the social dimension (average of 4.23), highlighting unemployment, specifically female unemployment, as well as the lack of occupational training, crime, high absenteeism and school drop-out, and lack of educational and social services facilities.

In third place comes economic activity with an average score of 3.84, focused mainly on commercial activity. Demographic dynamics point out population loss and population ageing (means equal to 2.80). Environmental sustainability shows a mean equal to 2.53, being pollution as the main issue. And finally, community governance shows the lowest level (mean of 1,68). The most common problems are the lack of sense of belonging to the neighbourhood, conflicts between residents and a weak associative life.

The relevance of dimensions among objectives established by projects is very similar. Physical space remains the most significant dimension (mean equal to 4,47), mainly as public space renovation. In the second place, economic activities and social inclusion show the same level of relevance as project objectives (3,88 and 3,83, respectively). Environmental and governance issues show a lower and similar level of relevance (means equal to 2,38 and 2,17). Nevertheless, the lowest level is for demography issues (1,52).

Regarding policy actions included in local projects, physical space is, again, the most relevant (mean of 4,78 points); being the specific issues according to their relative importance: the localisation of new urban infrastructure and services and the improvement of public space; issues related to urban mobility; and finally heritage and housing conditions. Economic and social dimensions are also relevant in projects (4,16 and 4,19, respectively). Economic actions focus on commercial activities and foster entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, and tourism. Social policy actions deal mainly with employment-related issues and, secondly, with specific social integration processes and groups, above all, in URBANA projects. Specifically, those actions focus primarily on ethnic minorities, immigrants, and child and youth care. Further down, gender equality, dependent people, health, and housing access to housing.

At a similar level are situated environmental and governance actions (2,84 and 2,42 points), and finally, demography (mean equal to 1,45). Environmental measures focus on the following issues: pollution levels (by reducing emissions, waste, noise, etc.), energy efficiency (through renewable energy), or reducing consumption (the circular economy and recycling). Governance actions aim to strengthen community (sense of community) and participation (expanding opportunities for public participation) and, to a lesser extent, promote collaboration networks with social agents and between public institutions. Finally, as regards demographics, the least prominent area, it shows no significant differences in the aspects addressed (such as seeking to resolve population loss, promoting population growth, tackling population ageing, etc.).

The relevance of the six dimensions is more or less the same in URBAN and URBANA programmes. First, economic and social dimensions are the most relevant dimensions, and big differences do not exist (see differences as effect size Fig. 4.1). These are the ‘core’ of local projects. However, governance stands out as a challenge in the URBANA programme and environment among their objectives; and especially as policy action (positive values in Fig. 4.1). Conversely, policy actions regarding physical space are more relevant in the URBAN initiative (a negative value in Fig. 4.1). Therefore, projects prioritise the intervention on improving the physical space, addressing processes that hinder social integration, and boosting economic activity. Nevertheless, environmental sustainability becomes more relevant with the URBANA programme instead of physical space. In addition, although differences are not statistically significant, governance and demography have positive values (meaning more relevance in the URBANA initiative) and negative values for the economic and, even more, the social dimension (more relevance in the URBAN initiative) (Fig. 4.1).

Fig. 4.1

(Effect sizes and IC [90%]. Source Own elaboration based on Urban Impact Project databases)

Urban sustainable development: difference in relevance of policy dimension in URBAN and URBANA initiatives

From Problems to Strategies: On Projects Consistency

Do dimensions have the same level of relevance as policy actions objectives, policy actions, and challenges existing in the neighbourhoods? Objectives play a crucial role as an intermediate between challenges and policy actions: objectives should be established according to some of the challenges identified, and policy actions should be designed to accomplish set objectives. Therefore, the project’s design should show consistency between these three elements (Rodríguez-Garcia & Navarro-Yañez, 2022).

Hence, to provide a general overview of this issue, we have created a chart that allows us to see comparatively the centrality of the different dimensions as challenges, objectives, and policy actions; in addition to standardised differences as effect sizes (see Table 4.1 in annex). The main result is that there is not always a correspondence between these three moments of the planning process of urban initiatives analysed. However, as a general pattern, only slight differences exist between the relevance of policy areas as objectives, challenges, and policy actions. Only specific dimensions show more important differences indicating a lower level of consistency. Governance is more relevant as a policy objective than as a neighbourhood challenge, especially among URBAN projects. This pattern is similar to the environmental dimension in URBANA projects. The social dimension has more relevance as a policy objective than as a neighbourhood challenge or policy action (especially in the case of the URBANA initiative). And the demography dimension stands out as a challenge, but its relevance is low as objectives and policy actions in URBAN and URBANA programmes (see detailed information in the annex) (Fig. 4.2).

Fig. 4.2

(Means in scale [1–5]. Source Own elaboration based on Urban Impact Projects databases)

Projects agenda: relevance of policy sectors as challenges, objectives, and policy actions

In sum, physical space and economy dimensions show the highest level of consistency in analysed projects: they are very relevant as challenges, objectives, and policy actions in the strategy designed by projects. The oppositive situation for demography: it is a challenge without specific actions, maybe because activities in other dimensions could address some of the problems included in this dimension (for example, better urban space could attract young people to the neighbourhood). Regarding social inclusion, the pattern and its explanation could be similar: unemployment is the most relevant challenge and one of the most relevant objectives, and policy actions to solve this challenge focus on economic activities as a mechanism to generate new employment opportunities for residents. Finally, governance has a more relevant role in action plans than in the diagnosis or the objectives, maybe because of procedural purposes that could help accomplish other more substantive goals. This pattern could show some degree of integration between different policy areas as expected complementary and facilitation effects between them in the framework of project strategies (Navarro-Yañez, 2021).

Conclusions: A Sustainable and Integrated Urban Development Model

The previous analyses have shown the relevance of different policy areas as dimensions of the sustainable urban development idea or policy frame in projects and programmes analysed. Do they match this policy frame?, Do they balance the defined dimensions?, Do the projects show consistency between objectives, challenges, and policy actions?

The main results show that URBAN and URBANA programmes show a comprehensive policy agenda including different sustainable urban dimensions as relevant challenges to solve, objectives to attain, and action to achieve them. Therefore, from this point of view, they match the general policy frame that the EU has proposed to promote urban development. However, URBAN and URBANA initiatives differ according to the relevance of some dimensions. First, physical space and economic and social dimensions are the most relevant dimensions in URBAN and URBANA projects. But, second, environmental issues increase their relevance in the URBANA programme, specifically as policy actions to carry out, and the opposite for physical space. Although differences are smaller, demography and governance show positive values, and economic and social dimensions show negative values. Therefore, the URBAN programme is closer to the classical idea or policy frame focused on ‘neighbourhood revitalisation’ combining physical, economic, and social revitalisation. In contrast, URBANA is closer to the more contemporary vision of fostering ‘sustainable communities based on social, economic, governance and, above all, environmental sustainability; as regards the objectives and, especially, the policy action proposed in their local projects’.

The analysis of the consistency between objectives, challenges, and policy actions shows some mixed results. Consistency exists because differences are low or non-statistically significant. However, some slight discrepancies exist for governance, environment, social, and demography dimensions that could indicate that objectives. These results could show project design combines consistency with some degree of integration between some objectives and policy actions in different policy dimensions of sustainable urban development. And therefore, this ‘idea’ means something more than a set of balance goals among dimensions; it could also need some degree of integration in order to accomplish the complexity and transversality of urban problems. It is well-known that integration is a central aspect of the model of urban development proposed by the EU since the 1990s

Annex

See Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Sustainable urban development dimensions in URBAN and URBANA Programmes: relevance and consistency