Final Report Summary - CHANCE2SUSTAIN (Urban Chances: City growth and the sustainability challenge; Comparing fast growing cities in growing economies)
Executive Summary:
The C2S project was designed to undertake comparative empirical research in 10 cities in four fast-growing countries of the South to understand the role of SKM and participatory processes in facing the challenges in a number of strategic domains of urban development; those of economic growth, social inequality and vulnerability, and environmental governance. This demanded that the research team locate the project and its parts in a range of theoretical frameworks at different levels, namely, the meta framework of the project, described in this paper; the theoretical and methodological frames for each domain; and the theoretical framework for comparative urban.
In each city, there were researchers from both the North and South working together in the five domains of economic growth through megaprojects; social mobilisation and social exclusion in sub-standard settlements; environmental governance with the focus on water-related issues; spatial knowledge management; and fiscal decentralisation and participatory city budgeting. The development of theoretical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for the research were developed collaboratively for each domain in order that comparison of the urban processes across the cities could take place. Furthermore, since the main aim of the project is to compare cities in terms of the extent to which they have shifted towards building adaptive capacity for a trajectory towards a more sustainable future, the research project adopted a relational approach to comparing the case study cities, which accepts that the complex territorial histories [re]produce the human geography of places within a network of cities. Based on the concept of relational space, it is assumed in this project that many urban phenomena are created by, tied into, and shape sets of connections, which can be socio-economic, political, and spatio temporal.
Project Context and Objectives:
Cities with growing economies in developing countries are strong drivers of their national economies and have international linkages with cities in other countries. This growing urban economic base provides city governments with political and financial ‘space’ to govern their cities in the direction of more sustainable development. Although Sassen (2002) has declared that city competitiveness dictates that cities have to take similar measures to promote growth and increase their competitiveness, recent research indicates that countries and city governments have a significant amount of leeway in developing local policies to make urban development more sustainable (Baud and de Wit, 2008). The leeway depends on (1) the economic base of the city (i.e. one sector or a more diversified urban economy) (2) the inclusiveness of city governance (i.e. the strength and breadth of participatory processes), (3) the recognition of environmental and social benefits/costs of city growth, (4) the utilisation of spatial knowledge management to improve effectiveness (spatial knowledge for effective priorities in planning), and (5) existing financial and regulatory frameworks. Such leeway is urgently needed to balance the trade-offs inherent in the combination of economic, social and environmental issues, which together make up sustainable development (SD).
In this project we want to examine how governments and citizens in cities with differing patterns of economic growth make use of participatory (integrated) spatial knowledge to direct urban governance towards more sustainable development (SD). Participatory spatial knowledge is the main concept we use to study the issue of urban sustainable development, as it reflects a strategic resource, which all stakeholders can contribute to urban governance processes. It includes both expert knowledge and several forms of non-expert knowledge, such as knowledge from (working) experience (tacit), embedded environmental and economic sector knowledge, and social (or community-based) knowledge at the neighbourhood and city-wide level (Coaffee and Healey, 2003; cf. van Ewijk and Baud, forthcoming). Participatory processes of urban planning and management are strategic in eliciting these forms of sector- and location-specific knowledge, which are usually not acknowledged in top-down, expert-driven models of urban governance and planning. Incorporating both expert and local community knowledge in participatory spatial knowledge management can make urban governance and planning more effective and socially acceptable (Innes and Gruber, 2005).
Although participatory spatial knowledge management is increasingly used in urban planning processes, its success depends on external political and economic conditions (Gaventa, 2006; Baud et al 2004; Ackermann, 2004). A legal framework providing for fiscal decentralisation and funding, is a strategic support. The influence of various external conditions has not yet been analysed much locally and certainly not comparatively across different socio-political contexts. Nevertheless, it is a strategic question, given the inherent trade-offs and potential political conflicts in combining environmental, social and economic goals (within SD). Therefore, our project focuses on ten cities with contrasting economic and political conditions, with the main scientific objective of developing a qualitative explanatory framework (= model) which links the ways in which participatory spatial knowledge management can direct urban governance to sustainable development (SD). This model will show 1) the influence of differing political and economic conditions, which can be either conducive or obstructing to more sustainable development patterns; 2) outline the ways in which participatory urban governance can address issues of spatial and social inequality, and promoting environmental sustainability, and 3) how utilizing participatory knowledge management and decentralised fiscalfunding can support these initiatives. A further project objective is the participatory dissemination of the model and its trade-offs to local actors for developing policy recommendations.
Project Results:
In summary, Chance2Sustain results can be clustered around the idea of governing from a knowledge perspective as the main cross-cutting theme of the research. We therefore apply the concept of a knowledge configuration to partly examine the use of knowledge in governance (across the domains). The project has developed an analytical framework for understanding the knowledge configurations related to the processes of governance that aim at addressing issues of social inequality, economic inequality and environmental and climate protection. The configuration is therefore our way to encapsulate all elements to assess particular governance arrangements and transitions, and issues where urban development decision-making is taking place across the domains.
Governing the present and the transition to the future means looking at building capacities for reflexive learning (based on knowledge building processes) to achieve a different relationship between environment and development (with the emphasis on the role of human endeavour). The building of capacities would be designed to make cities more sustainable as an outcome. Thus, we ask the question of what capacities have been built up, and embedded in specific arrangements, that allow cities to develop practices that support urban, socioeconomic and environmental change according to locally negotiated conceptions of sustainability? It is also important therefore to ask: what are the arrangements that might prevent this from happening, and what are the limitations and constraints that cities are facing in developing such practices?
We therefore examine what capacities are evident in the governing processes (in WP2, 3, 4, 5, 6). What are the capacities that have emerged and are emerging to achieve a different relationship in contrast with ‘business as usual’ (the dominance of the economic growth)? The central question that needs to be addressed when dealing with capacity is the following: capacity of what/who, for what/ whom, and with what effects?
In our analytical framework the concept of ‘capacity’ is conceptualised in relation to the notion of ‘configurations’ and in close connection with knowledge production, exchange, contestation and use. It is linked to two central aspects of our analysis: our approach to governance (inclusive, participative, reflexive, interactive) and the longterm goals of sustainability or the transition towards sustainability addressed at the urban and more global level.
In our understanding, building capacities means building different types of knowledge as our main focus, accessing resources in a generic way, considering inclusion and exclusion of actors and knowledge, while taking structural constraints into consideration. Research results focused not on a universalising approach but rather propose that configurations need to be contextualised and can have locally produced pluralistic outcomes related to cross-scale uncertainties and´complexities. These knowledge management configurations need to be anlaysed over time within actor coalitions and processes, which may have spatial-temporal and contextual dynamics with spill-over effects across boundaries and scales (open sustainability); or within locally negotiated processes (pluralistic visions of sustainability).
In the project the concept of ‘configuration’ was a main result of the project. It was used to capture the important combination of elements that contribute to urban development decision-making and outcomes in the social, economic and environmental domains with specific reference to the knowledges produced, exchanged and usedin these processes, which we are analysing in specific urban contexts/cities in the South. The concept of configurationsrelated to spatial knowledge management has emerged from the fieldwork in our case studies and was applied in depth to the issue of spatial knowledge management in the WP5 fieldwork report and is defined below.
We define a spatial knowledge management configuration (SKMC) as an ensemble of:
1. Discourses /framings about spatial knowledge management;
2. Actor coalitions and/or networks and their power relations in managing spatial knowledge in work processes (particularly of local government, but not exclusively);
3. The main processes of knowledge generation, exchange, and contestation;
4. Spatial knowledge platforms and products produced and utilized (ICT-GIS-based products; maps) (cf. Baud et al. 2013; van Buuren 2009).
Although the changes in processes, power relations and outcomes are part of the SKM ensemble, we have kept them separate in recognizing that outcomes are also influenced by other factors than those in the SKM configuration. The concept of a configuration, as an ensemble of dimensions, can also be used more generally as an analytical tool. During the 2014 Chance2Sustain workshop we came up with the following general definition of urban configuration as an analytical tool with which to interpret the knowledge related results from the other WPs across cities:
1. The discourses/framings concerning the domain issues;
2. The actor coalitions and their power relations (related to a particular domain–WP);
3. The main processes within that each domain (WP) (economic growth through mega-projects ; social mobilisation ; environmental governance related to water ; spatial knowledge management ; and fiscal decentralisation and participatory budgeting);
4. The platforms (technologies), products and infrastructure, produced for the configuration (cf. Pfeffer et al. 2013; Baud et al. 2011; van Buuren 2009).
Urban spatialised knowledge management configuration (SKMC) is the main concept we use to study the question of how urban development processes can be made more sustainable and inclusive, by looking at ways in which spatialised knowledge is drawn together (Latham and Sassen 2005). Spatial knowledges reflect a strategic set of resources, to which all stakeholders in urban governance processes can contribute. The question also concerns whether demands for, and contributions to, such spatial knowledge can become more inclusive, embedded and a product of participatory and interactive governance in urban decision-making processes, and what the implications of this would be for more sustainable urban development outcomes.
This question fits into a broader debate on how urban policy-making processes are changing from processes in which government domains are the dominant locus of power to those in which networks of different actors participate in governance networks, i.e. the shift to a network society (Barnett and Scott, 2007; Baud and De Wit, 2008; Castells, 2000, Coaffee and Healey, 2003; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003; Innes and Booher, 2003). This includes the discussion on how policy-making processes are being influenced by the rapid exchange of ideas, people, and technologies, linked through internet and other forms of exchange internationally and the fluidity of local combinations of such ‘things’ into urban assemblages (Fairclough, 2006; McFarlane, 2011; McCann and Ward, 2011).
In this research project, we see policy making increasingly taking place through networks of actors who are “relatively stable sets of independent, but operationally autonomous and negotiating actors, focused on joint problem solving” (Hajer 2005, 241). Such organisational interaction is necessary to solve problems of urban sustainable development, characterised by complexity, uncertainty of trajectories, and a variety of stresses. We recognize the necessity of focusing on the combinations of issues that governance networks do or do not include in governing, and the extent to which spaces for more deliberative processes are created and utilised ; as well as what knowledge and information is constructed in them to inform decision-making processes (from expert to community-based), and how reflexive such processes are.
A first question is the extent to which governments recognise and work with other actors. This has stimulated debate around concepts of democracy and citizenship, as contemporary policy-making arenas and public participation approaches are critiqued for a lack of representation in decision-making (Innes and Booher 2004; McEwan 2005). This literature has also stimulated discussion on the strength of emerging forms of citizenship built up within social movements and civil society organizations to empower their members and engage with state institutions (e.g. Holston 2008 ; Scott and Barnett, 2009). In our work, we are interested in the actors driving transition processes, and the extent to which collective agency is built up, based on the rules of engagement within and around such spaces governing how actors engage with each other, and the sets of recognised legitimate knowledge framing discourses within them.
Conceptualising how power is dispersed throughout multi-scalar governance arrangements requires a recognition of the complex ensemble of power relations which create hybrid arrangements. Assemblage is a concept that helps to grasp non-linearity without reducing the grouping to its component parts, and can be defined as a fluid arrangement of different clusters of ideas, actor coalitions, spaces, materials and their relationships. It is the very processual nature of the relationships between these elements that define the assemblage (Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Delanda 2006). However, rather than simply thick description, the assemblage perspective requires an analysis of how power relations are produced (Brenner 2011).
Governing the present and the transition to the future means looking at building capacities for reflexive learning (based on knowledge building processes) to achieve a different relationship between environment and development (with the emphasis on the role of human endeavour). The building of capacities would be designed to make cities more sustainable as an outcome. Thus, we ask the question of what capacities have been built up, and embedded in specific arrangements, that allow cities to develop practices that support urban, socioeconomic and environmental change according to locally negotiated conceptions of sustainability? It is also important therefore to ask: what are the arrangements that might prevent this from happening, and what are the limitations and constraints that cities are facing in developing such practices?
Potential Impact:
Expected impacts
- To improve policy-makers’ and other societal actors’ shared understanding of challenges posed by fast growing cities to sustainable development.
- To promote an understanding of the challenges posed by fast growing cities to sustainable development.
- To get attention of policy-makers and other societal actors.
- Policy actors have an improved joint understanding of risks and challenges of large-scale economic projects.
- Policy and societal actors have an improved understanding of policies and politics to address urban inequality.
- Policy and societal actors have a better joint understanding of environmental risks and know about possible strategies to combine the “green” and the “brown” agenda
- Policy and society actors have an improved understanding of participatory “spatial” knowledge models in metropolitan governance networks
- Policy and societal actors have a better understanding of the possible links between fiscal decentralization, participatory budgeting and inclusive development.
- An interactive information and communication strategy is planned and implemented in order to support the engagement and networking capacity of the project participants, to ensure the dissemination of project outputs and to identify and influence potential agents of change across the policy arena.
- Relationships and structures are created to ensure learning from and cohesion in the project, its continuous and planned implementation & development in relation to other opportunities in the concerned fields, sustainable interest in the issues is raised.
Evidence of Impacts
- Evidence of use of research and knowledge provided by the project.
- Active engagement of policy-makers, researchers and other societal actors in debating the named challenges.
- Increased attention to risks and challenges that large scale economic projects impose in fast-growing cities.
- Increased attention to problems of poverty and inequality and their impacts on sustainable development.
- Increased attention to environmental risks and knowledge about cost reducing models
- Increased attention to participatory “spatial” knowledge models.
- Increased attention to these links and their chances for sustainable development policies and their implementation.
- Information and communications strategy.
- Research outcomes have been widely distributed through the communication channels defined in the strategy.
- Establishment of effective workflow and communication processes.
- Development of collaborative work with other actors.
Why a combined European and global approach
Rapid urbanization processes are today taking place globally, and will increasingly be shifting towards cities in the global South. In the current phase of global interconnectivity, these processes have enormous wider implications than only in the regions in which they take place. As stated by the World Development Report 2009, urban sustainability takes on critical importance and requires policy solutions especially for developing countries where persistent social and spatial inequalities overlap. Besides the questions of social inequality and poverty, environmental issues and decentralisation strategies urgently need to be discussed.
These questions are of strategic importance for European foreign policy, development co-operation and environmental policies and require informed responses. The political system of European foreign policy and development co-operation comprises:
• Political leadership provided by the Council,
• the Commission in Brussels,
• the network of field offices,
• the supervision and decision-making arrangements for member states and
• the European Parliament.
European donors (EC and the member states) are globally the most important, considering their total amount of ODA and are the largest trading partner of the developing countries. Globalisation brings opportunities and challenges for European development co-operation and external relations with developing countries. Providing a better understanding of the issues involved in urban sustainable development allows Europe to focus its development cooperation activities, and set priorities in policies and projects dealing with environmental and social issues internationally. It provides a basis for joint approaches to mobilize European capacity, and links European networks to other international networks dealing with similar issues (ICLEI, IULA).
However, the problems of rapid urbanization and sustainable development have to be tackled at a Global level – bringing together European researchers and their Southern partners – in order to learn from the other partners in the network, be able to disseminate results within the network as well as to local stakeholders and policymakers within the concerned countries as well as in Europe. The impact occurred at different scale levels in order to be effective: locally, nationally, and regionally in both the global South as well as in the North. Therefore, the project implemented co-operation with institutes and research groups in three world regions working on similar issues. This provided the opportunity for impact at the local and country level, through the stakeholder and dissemination workshops and policy briefs (including in the local language). In order to maximize impact at the regional level, the project linked up with a number of international networks working in the areas of concern in the programme. These included networks combining researchers and practitioners working on one or more of the strategic topics defined in the programme, such as EADI as European association of Development training and research institutes, the ICLEI as major international network in the area of environmental sustainability issues, and the IULA as global organisation linking local city authorities worldwide.
The national workshops provided the opportunity to link up with other ongoing research in each country concerned, and researchers were invited to make contributions. Moreover, dissemination conferences were held in the world regions of interest bringing together a high number of researchers, policy-makers and other societal stakeholders. Southern project partners hosted research seminars and dissemination conferences in the South (including Lima, Peru and Durban, South Africa) , allowing them to maximize the input from their national networks.
Finally, to maximize impact, all research outcomes, e.g. publications and reports, were disseminated to institutes and networks using the internet as a means of communication.
Other national or international research activities
Ongoing or recently completed research activities were prominently considered in the planning of the project. Leaders of the research Work Packages made intensive appraisals on the current state-of-the-art projects in the thematic issues and the latest developments in their fields.
Moreover, the project participants maintained direct contact with external researchers and other research programmes in order to be informed on latest developments in the field. Research seminars were held locally in the world regions selected: Africa, Asia and Latin America. This helped project participants to have open and easy access to current knowledge-bases and co-operation with ongoing national and local research programmes. The project supported the involvement and expertise of its initial participants and being open to new ideas from external sources attracted to the field.
List of Websites:
www.chance2sustain.eu
The C2S project was designed to undertake comparative empirical research in 10 cities in four fast-growing countries of the South to understand the role of SKM and participatory processes in facing the challenges in a number of strategic domains of urban development; those of economic growth, social inequality and vulnerability, and environmental governance. This demanded that the research team locate the project and its parts in a range of theoretical frameworks at different levels, namely, the meta framework of the project, described in this paper; the theoretical and methodological frames for each domain; and the theoretical framework for comparative urban.
In each city, there were researchers from both the North and South working together in the five domains of economic growth through megaprojects; social mobilisation and social exclusion in sub-standard settlements; environmental governance with the focus on water-related issues; spatial knowledge management; and fiscal decentralisation and participatory city budgeting. The development of theoretical, conceptual and methodological frameworks for the research were developed collaboratively for each domain in order that comparison of the urban processes across the cities could take place. Furthermore, since the main aim of the project is to compare cities in terms of the extent to which they have shifted towards building adaptive capacity for a trajectory towards a more sustainable future, the research project adopted a relational approach to comparing the case study cities, which accepts that the complex territorial histories [re]produce the human geography of places within a network of cities. Based on the concept of relational space, it is assumed in this project that many urban phenomena are created by, tied into, and shape sets of connections, which can be socio-economic, political, and spatio temporal.
Project Context and Objectives:
Cities with growing economies in developing countries are strong drivers of their national economies and have international linkages with cities in other countries. This growing urban economic base provides city governments with political and financial ‘space’ to govern their cities in the direction of more sustainable development. Although Sassen (2002) has declared that city competitiveness dictates that cities have to take similar measures to promote growth and increase their competitiveness, recent research indicates that countries and city governments have a significant amount of leeway in developing local policies to make urban development more sustainable (Baud and de Wit, 2008). The leeway depends on (1) the economic base of the city (i.e. one sector or a more diversified urban economy) (2) the inclusiveness of city governance (i.e. the strength and breadth of participatory processes), (3) the recognition of environmental and social benefits/costs of city growth, (4) the utilisation of spatial knowledge management to improve effectiveness (spatial knowledge for effective priorities in planning), and (5) existing financial and regulatory frameworks. Such leeway is urgently needed to balance the trade-offs inherent in the combination of economic, social and environmental issues, which together make up sustainable development (SD).
In this project we want to examine how governments and citizens in cities with differing patterns of economic growth make use of participatory (integrated) spatial knowledge to direct urban governance towards more sustainable development (SD). Participatory spatial knowledge is the main concept we use to study the issue of urban sustainable development, as it reflects a strategic resource, which all stakeholders can contribute to urban governance processes. It includes both expert knowledge and several forms of non-expert knowledge, such as knowledge from (working) experience (tacit), embedded environmental and economic sector knowledge, and social (or community-based) knowledge at the neighbourhood and city-wide level (Coaffee and Healey, 2003; cf. van Ewijk and Baud, forthcoming). Participatory processes of urban planning and management are strategic in eliciting these forms of sector- and location-specific knowledge, which are usually not acknowledged in top-down, expert-driven models of urban governance and planning. Incorporating both expert and local community knowledge in participatory spatial knowledge management can make urban governance and planning more effective and socially acceptable (Innes and Gruber, 2005).
Although participatory spatial knowledge management is increasingly used in urban planning processes, its success depends on external political and economic conditions (Gaventa, 2006; Baud et al 2004; Ackermann, 2004). A legal framework providing for fiscal decentralisation and funding, is a strategic support. The influence of various external conditions has not yet been analysed much locally and certainly not comparatively across different socio-political contexts. Nevertheless, it is a strategic question, given the inherent trade-offs and potential political conflicts in combining environmental, social and economic goals (within SD). Therefore, our project focuses on ten cities with contrasting economic and political conditions, with the main scientific objective of developing a qualitative explanatory framework (= model) which links the ways in which participatory spatial knowledge management can direct urban governance to sustainable development (SD). This model will show 1) the influence of differing political and economic conditions, which can be either conducive or obstructing to more sustainable development patterns; 2) outline the ways in which participatory urban governance can address issues of spatial and social inequality, and promoting environmental sustainability, and 3) how utilizing participatory knowledge management and decentralised fiscalfunding can support these initiatives. A further project objective is the participatory dissemination of the model and its trade-offs to local actors for developing policy recommendations.
Project Results:
In summary, Chance2Sustain results can be clustered around the idea of governing from a knowledge perspective as the main cross-cutting theme of the research. We therefore apply the concept of a knowledge configuration to partly examine the use of knowledge in governance (across the domains). The project has developed an analytical framework for understanding the knowledge configurations related to the processes of governance that aim at addressing issues of social inequality, economic inequality and environmental and climate protection. The configuration is therefore our way to encapsulate all elements to assess particular governance arrangements and transitions, and issues where urban development decision-making is taking place across the domains.
Governing the present and the transition to the future means looking at building capacities for reflexive learning (based on knowledge building processes) to achieve a different relationship between environment and development (with the emphasis on the role of human endeavour). The building of capacities would be designed to make cities more sustainable as an outcome. Thus, we ask the question of what capacities have been built up, and embedded in specific arrangements, that allow cities to develop practices that support urban, socioeconomic and environmental change according to locally negotiated conceptions of sustainability? It is also important therefore to ask: what are the arrangements that might prevent this from happening, and what are the limitations and constraints that cities are facing in developing such practices?
We therefore examine what capacities are evident in the governing processes (in WP2, 3, 4, 5, 6). What are the capacities that have emerged and are emerging to achieve a different relationship in contrast with ‘business as usual’ (the dominance of the economic growth)? The central question that needs to be addressed when dealing with capacity is the following: capacity of what/who, for what/ whom, and with what effects?
In our analytical framework the concept of ‘capacity’ is conceptualised in relation to the notion of ‘configurations’ and in close connection with knowledge production, exchange, contestation and use. It is linked to two central aspects of our analysis: our approach to governance (inclusive, participative, reflexive, interactive) and the longterm goals of sustainability or the transition towards sustainability addressed at the urban and more global level.
In our understanding, building capacities means building different types of knowledge as our main focus, accessing resources in a generic way, considering inclusion and exclusion of actors and knowledge, while taking structural constraints into consideration. Research results focused not on a universalising approach but rather propose that configurations need to be contextualised and can have locally produced pluralistic outcomes related to cross-scale uncertainties and´complexities. These knowledge management configurations need to be anlaysed over time within actor coalitions and processes, which may have spatial-temporal and contextual dynamics with spill-over effects across boundaries and scales (open sustainability); or within locally negotiated processes (pluralistic visions of sustainability).
In the project the concept of ‘configuration’ was a main result of the project. It was used to capture the important combination of elements that contribute to urban development decision-making and outcomes in the social, economic and environmental domains with specific reference to the knowledges produced, exchanged and usedin these processes, which we are analysing in specific urban contexts/cities in the South. The concept of configurationsrelated to spatial knowledge management has emerged from the fieldwork in our case studies and was applied in depth to the issue of spatial knowledge management in the WP5 fieldwork report and is defined below.
We define a spatial knowledge management configuration (SKMC) as an ensemble of:
1. Discourses /framings about spatial knowledge management;
2. Actor coalitions and/or networks and their power relations in managing spatial knowledge in work processes (particularly of local government, but not exclusively);
3. The main processes of knowledge generation, exchange, and contestation;
4. Spatial knowledge platforms and products produced and utilized (ICT-GIS-based products; maps) (cf. Baud et al. 2013; van Buuren 2009).
Although the changes in processes, power relations and outcomes are part of the SKM ensemble, we have kept them separate in recognizing that outcomes are also influenced by other factors than those in the SKM configuration. The concept of a configuration, as an ensemble of dimensions, can also be used more generally as an analytical tool. During the 2014 Chance2Sustain workshop we came up with the following general definition of urban configuration as an analytical tool with which to interpret the knowledge related results from the other WPs across cities:
1. The discourses/framings concerning the domain issues;
2. The actor coalitions and their power relations (related to a particular domain–WP);
3. The main processes within that each domain (WP) (economic growth through mega-projects ; social mobilisation ; environmental governance related to water ; spatial knowledge management ; and fiscal decentralisation and participatory budgeting);
4. The platforms (technologies), products and infrastructure, produced for the configuration (cf. Pfeffer et al. 2013; Baud et al. 2011; van Buuren 2009).
Urban spatialised knowledge management configuration (SKMC) is the main concept we use to study the question of how urban development processes can be made more sustainable and inclusive, by looking at ways in which spatialised knowledge is drawn together (Latham and Sassen 2005). Spatial knowledges reflect a strategic set of resources, to which all stakeholders in urban governance processes can contribute. The question also concerns whether demands for, and contributions to, such spatial knowledge can become more inclusive, embedded and a product of participatory and interactive governance in urban decision-making processes, and what the implications of this would be for more sustainable urban development outcomes.
This question fits into a broader debate on how urban policy-making processes are changing from processes in which government domains are the dominant locus of power to those in which networks of different actors participate in governance networks, i.e. the shift to a network society (Barnett and Scott, 2007; Baud and De Wit, 2008; Castells, 2000, Coaffee and Healey, 2003; Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003; Innes and Booher, 2003). This includes the discussion on how policy-making processes are being influenced by the rapid exchange of ideas, people, and technologies, linked through internet and other forms of exchange internationally and the fluidity of local combinations of such ‘things’ into urban assemblages (Fairclough, 2006; McFarlane, 2011; McCann and Ward, 2011).
In this research project, we see policy making increasingly taking place through networks of actors who are “relatively stable sets of independent, but operationally autonomous and negotiating actors, focused on joint problem solving” (Hajer 2005, 241). Such organisational interaction is necessary to solve problems of urban sustainable development, characterised by complexity, uncertainty of trajectories, and a variety of stresses. We recognize the necessity of focusing on the combinations of issues that governance networks do or do not include in governing, and the extent to which spaces for more deliberative processes are created and utilised ; as well as what knowledge and information is constructed in them to inform decision-making processes (from expert to community-based), and how reflexive such processes are.
A first question is the extent to which governments recognise and work with other actors. This has stimulated debate around concepts of democracy and citizenship, as contemporary policy-making arenas and public participation approaches are critiqued for a lack of representation in decision-making (Innes and Booher 2004; McEwan 2005). This literature has also stimulated discussion on the strength of emerging forms of citizenship built up within social movements and civil society organizations to empower their members and engage with state institutions (e.g. Holston 2008 ; Scott and Barnett, 2009). In our work, we are interested in the actors driving transition processes, and the extent to which collective agency is built up, based on the rules of engagement within and around such spaces governing how actors engage with each other, and the sets of recognised legitimate knowledge framing discourses within them.
Conceptualising how power is dispersed throughout multi-scalar governance arrangements requires a recognition of the complex ensemble of power relations which create hybrid arrangements. Assemblage is a concept that helps to grasp non-linearity without reducing the grouping to its component parts, and can be defined as a fluid arrangement of different clusters of ideas, actor coalitions, spaces, materials and their relationships. It is the very processual nature of the relationships between these elements that define the assemblage (Deleuze and Guattari 1987; Delanda 2006). However, rather than simply thick description, the assemblage perspective requires an analysis of how power relations are produced (Brenner 2011).
Governing the present and the transition to the future means looking at building capacities for reflexive learning (based on knowledge building processes) to achieve a different relationship between environment and development (with the emphasis on the role of human endeavour). The building of capacities would be designed to make cities more sustainable as an outcome. Thus, we ask the question of what capacities have been built up, and embedded in specific arrangements, that allow cities to develop practices that support urban, socioeconomic and environmental change according to locally negotiated conceptions of sustainability? It is also important therefore to ask: what are the arrangements that might prevent this from happening, and what are the limitations and constraints that cities are facing in developing such practices?
Potential Impact:
Expected impacts
- To improve policy-makers’ and other societal actors’ shared understanding of challenges posed by fast growing cities to sustainable development.
- To promote an understanding of the challenges posed by fast growing cities to sustainable development.
- To get attention of policy-makers and other societal actors.
- Policy actors have an improved joint understanding of risks and challenges of large-scale economic projects.
- Policy and societal actors have an improved understanding of policies and politics to address urban inequality.
- Policy and societal actors have a better joint understanding of environmental risks and know about possible strategies to combine the “green” and the “brown” agenda
- Policy and society actors have an improved understanding of participatory “spatial” knowledge models in metropolitan governance networks
- Policy and societal actors have a better understanding of the possible links between fiscal decentralization, participatory budgeting and inclusive development.
- An interactive information and communication strategy is planned and implemented in order to support the engagement and networking capacity of the project participants, to ensure the dissemination of project outputs and to identify and influence potential agents of change across the policy arena.
- Relationships and structures are created to ensure learning from and cohesion in the project, its continuous and planned implementation & development in relation to other opportunities in the concerned fields, sustainable interest in the issues is raised.
Evidence of Impacts
- Evidence of use of research and knowledge provided by the project.
- Active engagement of policy-makers, researchers and other societal actors in debating the named challenges.
- Increased attention to risks and challenges that large scale economic projects impose in fast-growing cities.
- Increased attention to problems of poverty and inequality and their impacts on sustainable development.
- Increased attention to environmental risks and knowledge about cost reducing models
- Increased attention to participatory “spatial” knowledge models.
- Increased attention to these links and their chances for sustainable development policies and their implementation.
- Information and communications strategy.
- Research outcomes have been widely distributed through the communication channels defined in the strategy.
- Establishment of effective workflow and communication processes.
- Development of collaborative work with other actors.
Why a combined European and global approach
Rapid urbanization processes are today taking place globally, and will increasingly be shifting towards cities in the global South. In the current phase of global interconnectivity, these processes have enormous wider implications than only in the regions in which they take place. As stated by the World Development Report 2009, urban sustainability takes on critical importance and requires policy solutions especially for developing countries where persistent social and spatial inequalities overlap. Besides the questions of social inequality and poverty, environmental issues and decentralisation strategies urgently need to be discussed.
These questions are of strategic importance for European foreign policy, development co-operation and environmental policies and require informed responses. The political system of European foreign policy and development co-operation comprises:
• Political leadership provided by the Council,
• the Commission in Brussels,
• the network of field offices,
• the supervision and decision-making arrangements for member states and
• the European Parliament.
European donors (EC and the member states) are globally the most important, considering their total amount of ODA and are the largest trading partner of the developing countries. Globalisation brings opportunities and challenges for European development co-operation and external relations with developing countries. Providing a better understanding of the issues involved in urban sustainable development allows Europe to focus its development cooperation activities, and set priorities in policies and projects dealing with environmental and social issues internationally. It provides a basis for joint approaches to mobilize European capacity, and links European networks to other international networks dealing with similar issues (ICLEI, IULA).
However, the problems of rapid urbanization and sustainable development have to be tackled at a Global level – bringing together European researchers and their Southern partners – in order to learn from the other partners in the network, be able to disseminate results within the network as well as to local stakeholders and policymakers within the concerned countries as well as in Europe. The impact occurred at different scale levels in order to be effective: locally, nationally, and regionally in both the global South as well as in the North. Therefore, the project implemented co-operation with institutes and research groups in three world regions working on similar issues. This provided the opportunity for impact at the local and country level, through the stakeholder and dissemination workshops and policy briefs (including in the local language). In order to maximize impact at the regional level, the project linked up with a number of international networks working in the areas of concern in the programme. These included networks combining researchers and practitioners working on one or more of the strategic topics defined in the programme, such as EADI as European association of Development training and research institutes, the ICLEI as major international network in the area of environmental sustainability issues, and the IULA as global organisation linking local city authorities worldwide.
The national workshops provided the opportunity to link up with other ongoing research in each country concerned, and researchers were invited to make contributions. Moreover, dissemination conferences were held in the world regions of interest bringing together a high number of researchers, policy-makers and other societal stakeholders. Southern project partners hosted research seminars and dissemination conferences in the South (including Lima, Peru and Durban, South Africa) , allowing them to maximize the input from their national networks.
Finally, to maximize impact, all research outcomes, e.g. publications and reports, were disseminated to institutes and networks using the internet as a means of communication.
Other national or international research activities
Ongoing or recently completed research activities were prominently considered in the planning of the project. Leaders of the research Work Packages made intensive appraisals on the current state-of-the-art projects in the thematic issues and the latest developments in their fields.
Moreover, the project participants maintained direct contact with external researchers and other research programmes in order to be informed on latest developments in the field. Research seminars were held locally in the world regions selected: Africa, Asia and Latin America. This helped project participants to have open and easy access to current knowledge-bases and co-operation with ongoing national and local research programmes. The project supported the involvement and expertise of its initial participants and being open to new ideas from external sources attracted to the field.
List of Websites:
www.chance2sustain.eu
