Forward Looking Survey - Priorities and needs for sustainable urban development
3. Priorities and needs for sustainable urban development
The core of the survey focused on identifying the most important priorities and needs for sustainable urban development according to the respondents. Representatives of urban authorities used the survey to report the priorities and needs of their own city or urban area. Respondents representing a higher-level public authority (e.g. national or regional), or other type of entity (e.g. research institutions, consultancies, associations) replied by expressing the views of their own organisation.
Thematic priorities
Respondents were first asked to reflect on their thematic priorities for sustainable urban development, selecting the three most important topics within three main thematic areas:
- Productive, smart and connected
- Green
- Just and inclusive
They could choose from a series of predefined topics, and add text to provide information and comment on their selection.
Analysis of the questionnaire data enabled answers to be cross-referenced with certain respondent characteristics, such as a region’s level of development, or a city’s size in the case of respondents representing urban authorities.
Productive, smart and connected
Regarding the first thematic area, ‘Productive, smart and connected’, the priority most frequently selected was mobility. This priority was not only the most chosen overall within the area (by 70% of respondents) but also stood out as the top 1 priority for 30% of all respondents and the top 2 priority for 35% of respondents.
What are the main issues at stake in terms of mobility – your top 1 priority in this thematic area?
The survey asked respondents to detail, in their own words, the main issues at stake within their top 1 priority. Their replies provide an idea of the topics that are most often associated with mobility. The most recurrent one was active mobility, with several comments expressing the need to develop walkable cities and increasing cycling infrastructures, but also the suggestion to reduce private car use, inserting traffic calming measures and planning for the 15-minute city. Another recurrent comment concerned the need for an increased and more accessible provision of public transport, including the use of electric buses and an enhanced rail network. More generally, several comments proposed ways to improve sustainable mobility, to reduce the impact on the environment and manage traffic issues such as noise and pollution. A few comments highlighted the need to upgrade or increase the road network, especially in urban-rural contexts.
In the overall ranking, mobility is followed by four priorities with similar percentages: job creation and entrepreneurship (39%), circular economy (37%), sustainable tourism (37%) and digital transition (36%). However, it is worth noting that digital transition, despite ranking fifth overall, is the second most selected top 1 priority after mobility, selected by 23% of respondents.
When examining whether city size influences the ranking, it is worth noting that mobility was the most selected priority across all categories of cities. Not surprisingly, the percentage of respondents selecting mobility as a priority slightly increases with the size of the city they represent.
Other priorities seem to be more clearly influenced by city size. In particular, circular economy and research and innovation were considered important by representatives of extra-large cities (with more than 1 million inhabitants), while digital transition and job creation and entrepreneurship were often selected by large, small and medium cities and towns (with less than 500 000 inhabitants), and sustainable tourism in particular by towns of less than 50 000 inhabitants.
The choice of certain priorities also seems to be influenced by the level of development of the regions represented. For example, for respondents from more developed regions, besides mobility (26%), circular economy (17%) and research and innovation (14%) were also top priorities, while less developed regions again highlighted mobility (22%) followed by job creation and entrepreneurship (15%) and digital transition (14%).
A pattern seems to emerge in this area where mobility is the unquestioned priority across all typologies of respondents, but beyond this, different priorities emerge based on the city size and level of development of the region. Larger cities and most developed regions focus on innovation and circular economy, which may reflect their more advanced infrastructure and greater resources that allow them to prioritise sustainable and future-oriented development. On the other hand, smaller cities and less developed regions prioritise jobs, but also digital infrastructures and services, indicating an emphasis on pressing economic needs and technological improvements.
Green
In the ‘Green’ thematic area, the two most selected priorities, with similar numbers, were climate adaptation (50% of respondents) and energy transition (48%). Although overall percentages are similar, it is important to stress that climate adaptation was the most selected top 1 priority (33%), while energy transition was more frequently selected as top 2 (17%) or top 3 (25%). Water management is in third position, selected by 39% of respondents, closely followed by waste management with 36% of choices.
What are the main issues at stake in climate adaptation, your top 1 priority in this thematic area?
Representatives of towns, however, were more likely to select either water management (18%) or waste management (17%) as a top priority.
Energy transition scored highly across all categories of cities.
Though to a lesser extent than city size, this dichotomy between climate priorities and waste and water management also seems to be influenced by levels of regional development. Climate adaptation, together with climate change mitigation, scored slightly higher in more developed regions (32% altogether) while waste and water management scored higher in less developed regions (30% altogether).
It is worth noting that sustainable soil and land use, which was in a low position in the overall ranking, scored quite high in more developed regions, probably as the issue is more pressing in areas with higher rates of land consumption.
Here it is more challenging to draw conclusions, mostly because according to respondents, some of these priorities are strongly interlinked and, in some cases, overlap, especially climate change with energy transition and water management.
The variation of priorities based on city size and level of development of the region in this thematic area is not as clear-cut as in the previous one. However, it seems that towns and less developed regions are still focusing on more immediate concerns, such as infrastructure development and resource management. Meanwhile, larger cities and more developed regions – where the impacts of climate change are more pronounced due to ‘concretisation’, soil consumption and land sealing – are seeking solutions to address these challenges more urgently, leveraging their greater resources and expertise.
Just and inclusive
In the thematic area ‘Just and inclusive’, the most important priority is affordable housing, selected by 53% of respondents, followed by urban regeneration (49%), social inclusion (42%) and education and employment (42%). Again, it is important to stress that affordable housing and social inclusion not only score at the top in the overall ranking, but also as top 1 priorities, each receiving 32% of preferences in that position. Urban regeneration, however, was more often selected as a top 3 priority (40%) and education and employment as top 2 (21%).
What are the main issues at stake in ‘Affordable housing’, your top 1 priority in this thematic area?
Education and employment rank very highly both in towns below 50 000 inhabitants (17%) and extra-large cities of over 1 million inhabitants (23%), but less in small and medium-sized cities.
Affordable housing, and even more evidently, social inclusion, become more prioritised as the size of the city grows. In fact these priorities are respectively 5 percentage points and 14 percentage points higher for extra-large cities than for towns of under 50 000 inhabitants. This result seems to confirm the fact that larger cities suffer more from socio-economic inequalities, and are therefore seeking solutions to tackle those challenges.
Culture and cultural heritage is more important in towns than in cities, and the ranking of health and wellbeing also falls as city size increases. In this case, it seems that smaller settlements focus on the assets that are central to promoting their identity, maintaining community cohesion, and promoting quality of life.
Overall, the level of a region’s development seems to have less of an influence on the ranking of ‘Just and inclusive’ priorities. An exception is affordable housing, which is slightly more prominent in more developed regions (5 percentage points higher than in less developed regions).
Other priority topics for sustainable urban development
The survey allowed participants to suggest additional topics they considered priorities for sustainable urban development, beyond those listed in the predefined responses. A total of 69 comments indicated that no further topics were necessary, while 85 comments offered various suggestions. Of this latter group, 42% highlighted topics related to the predefined priorities, in most cases mobility, affordable housing and social inclusion. Another 22% of the comments reported a topic that could be related to operational needs, such as planning at functional urban area level, multi-stakeholder approach, and citizen engagement. Finally, 35% of comments suggested new priorities. These included several comments on spatial development, suggesting topics such as the compact city, densification, shrinkage, spatial cohesion, provision of services and infrastructures. Other topics included social and demographic questions such as ageing cities, diversity and migration, and gender equality. There were also a few comments on accessibility, public spaces and place-making. It is worth noting that four comments expressed the need to consider multiple topics jointly, stressing the cross-sectoral and integrated nature of sustainable urban development.
Operational needs
Another set of survey questions focused on the most challenging operational needs for sustainable urban development. Operational needs are intended as all those processes, procedures and activities that are most needed to implement sustainable urban development successfully. Following the same approach as for the thematic priorities, operational needs were grouped into four key areas:
- Strategic policy process
- Governance and cooperation
- Funding and finance
- Territorial focus and scale
Respondents had to indicate their three most important operational needs in each area.
Also in this case, analyses of the results included looking for potential patterns in respondents’ replies according to the level of development of regions they represent, and size of cities represented by urban authorities.
This analysis showed no significant influence of the level of regional development on the type and ranking of operational needs reported, so it will not be displayed here.
Strategic policy process
Within the first area, the most important operational needs concern the design and implementation of strategies. Overall, 76% of respondents selected strategic design and planning, and 63% selected strategy implementation. While design and planning was selected as a top 1 need by 45% of respondents, implementation was selected either as top 2 (25%) or top 3 (31%) priority.
The other options scored significantly lower, although it is noteworthy that the second most selected priority as top 1 was data collection and analysis, with 33% of preferences.
Strategic design and planning was the most important operational need in towns and small cities with respectively 29% and 25% of preferences, while strategy implementation scored highest in extra-large cities with more than 1 million inhabitants (29% of preferences). This differentiation is to be expected, as larger cities have already established internal strategic planning departments, and have more experience in strategic planning and design. It seems they are more concerned with the complexity of implementation than with design. On the other hand, towns and small cities often lack internal strategic competences and resources, and struggle with the design phase.
What do you find most challenging about 'Strategic design and planning’, your top 1 operational need in this area?
Several other comments focused on the strict interlinkage between design and implementation, stressing the importance of implementation mechanisms and necessary funding sources. Other comments were more focused on the importance of the process of envisioning the future and designing the agenda, talking about the process of goal setting, especially establishing long-terms goals, and about the need for strategic vision and strategic change. Among the key components to design high quality strategies emerged that of collaboration, in terms of cooperation between stakeholders, departments and sectors (integrated approach), and layers of governments as well as public participation and citizen involvement. Other topics included the lack of human resources and expertise for strategic planning, especially in local administrations, and the need for capacity building.
Governance and cooperation
In the area of governance and cooperation, the most selected top 1 need was cooperation with other layers of government (multi-level governance), selected by 45% of respondents. However, overall this operational need only ranks third, with 55% of preferences. The second most important need, both as top 1 (29%) and in the overall ranking (63%), was cooperation with stakeholders (multi-stakeholder approach). Finally, citizen engagement is first in the overall ranking – selected as either the top 1, 2 or 3 need by 72% of respondents – although selected by just 20% of respondents as a top 1 operational need.
When analysing the impact of city size, it is possible to see that the focus on citizen engagement is driven mainly by towns and small cities, where respectively 28% and 25% of respondents chose it. Meanwhile, multi-level and multi-stakeholder governance are the most important needs for medium to extra-large cities with 250 000 inhabitants or more. This difference between smaller and larger cities can be probably attributed to the different complexity of their governance structures. Typically, in smaller cities and towns, local administrations are also smaller and less complex, and have closer, more direct relationships with citizens. As a result, public participation plays a more central role in decision-making. Larger cities have more diverse populations, a wider range of stakeholder interests, and more complex urban issues. Their local administrations have to deal with these complexities, making coordination among multiple actors and levels of government essential to tackle complex urban challenges successfully, in an integrated way.
What do you find most challenging about ‘Cooperation with other layers of government (multi-level governance)’, your top 1 operational need in this area?
Respondents identified several ingredients for more effective multi-level governance, including enhanced communication and flows of information, both vertical and horizontal cooperation, improved coordination, regulation harmonisation, and alignment of strategic and policy frameworks.
Funding and financial provisions were identified both as a challenge (e.g. financial dependence on higher levels of government, different resources, funding limitations) and as a key outcome of cooperation between different layers of government (e.g. to implement strategies, or enhance the capacity of administrative structures).
The most frequently mentioned governance level was the metropolitan or regional one. Respondents also stressed the need to enhance the importance and influence of the local level, particularly through local input to higher level decision-making.
Funding and finance
In the area of funding and finance, two operational needs scored similarly in the overall ranking: combining funding sources, selected by 64% of respondents, and access to public funding, selected by 63% of respondents. However, access to public funding was identified as the top 1 need by 58% of respondents, which effectively gives it greater importance despite being ranked second overall.
The third position is covered by ensuring the financial sustainability of projects (54%), followed by access to financial instruments (43%), which although being quite low in the overall ranking is the second most selected top 1 need by 17% of respondents.
Quite surprisingly, enhanced public procurement is the least selected (28% in the overall ranking and only 2% as the top 1 need), despite being considered a key activity for urban authorities, and involving challenges such as the need to balance legal, financial, social and operational concerns.
When asked to identify the challenges related to access to public funding as their top 1 operational need, the biggest number of respondents highlighted the complexity of the funding application process. Respondents claimed that the application process is often overly complicated, with short deadlines, making it particularly challenging for small local authorities. In addition, according to respondents, funding criteria are often too complex and misaligned with local funding priorities. They emphasised the importance of identifying appropriate funding sources that could correspond to their funding needs.
Indeed, respondents underlined the necessity for external grants, including combining multiple sources, to deal with a lack of own resources, which often implies difficulties in co-financing projects.
Local authorities face shortages of human resources and expertise, not only for preparing applications but also for managing funds. Both tasks were seen as imposing too much administrative burden on local authorities. For these reasons, survey respondents stressed the need for increased expertise and capacity building, as well as the simplification of procedures and regulations.
Territorial focus and scale
Regarding the area ‘Territorial focus and scale’, it is interesting to note that the highest operational need is planning at the scale of functional urban areas, both in the overall ranking (59%) and as top 1 need (52%). Evidently this topic is strictly linked with the second most important operational need, namely strengthening urban rural linkages (52%). This is followed closely by neighbourhood regeneration (51%) and urban design (49%).
The top 1 priority of this ranking reflects the increasing importance of urban regionalisation in recent years, where the boundaries between urban and rural, and urban and suburban, have blurred, and cities have taken on new spatial configurations. Additionally, current urban challenges and opportunities often cross administrative boundaries, requiring larger-scale approaches with cooperation between local authorities.
At the same time, seeing neighbourhood regeneration in third position also suggests that the need to work at very local scale continues: responses show an integration of different territorial scales.
In this area, it is not surprising to see that urban development in small cities is a key operational need for towns, but the interest decreases significantly as the size of the city grows. On the other hand, planning at the scale of functional urban areas is a priority need for cities of all sizes, but less for towns.
It is worth noting that large cities selected urban design and neighbourhood regeneration as top needs, suggesting a higher emphasis in tackling issues related to urban decay and deprived neighbourhoods.
Finally, territorial impact assessment only seems to be an important operational need for extra-large cities, likely because these cities face complex urban challenges at the scale of the metropolitan area, requiring the evaluation of how polices and projects affect different districts.
What do you find most challenging about ‘Planning at the scale of functional urban areas’, your top 1 operational need in this area?
When asked to identify the challenges related to planning at the scale of functional urban areas (FUAs) as their top 1 operational need, respondents clearly identified two key issues. The first is cooperation among the municipalities that are part of the FUA, and the second is the development of joint projects across administrative boundaries. These two elements are cited as priority challenges by most respondents.
Another relatively large group identified the delineation of the FUA as a main challenge, citing the need for a methodology and evidence-based criteria, and noting a mismatch between current boundaries and actual functional linkages and needs.
It seems that territories are lacking two main elements to successfully plan at FUA level. The first is an administrative and legal framework that corresponds with the FUA, equipped with decision-making power and appropriate competences. The second is planning instruments at the scale of the FUA that allow the implementation of coordinated policies. The instruments cited also include Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) of the EU cohesion policy. Several comments specified the need for either common strategic plans and frameworks, or spatial plans and urban design. These administrative frameworks and tools are needed to overcome obstacles, such as fragmentation and mismatch, diverging priorities, conflict and power unbalances, lack of funding, lack of administrative capacity of smaller municipalities, and lack of policy coordination.
But why promote planning at the level of the Functional Urban Area? Respondents stressed several reasons, including the need to increase connectivity among areas, strengthen urban-rural linkages, tackle issues of land-use and population distribution such as sprawl, territorial unbalances or shrinkage, provide for services and infrastructure, and raise quality of life across the FUA.
Some respondents highlighted key elements of successful planning, such as integration across territorial scales (from neighbourhood to FUA levels), and approaches that are integrated, citizen-led and participatory.
The survey also investigated Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA), asking respondents whether they were more interested in the methodologies of TIA, or in TIA as a mechanism to address spatial disparities. 78% of respondents declared being more interested in methodologies. The remaining 22% were free to add comments to highlight specific thematic areas. These comments were few (22 in total) and varied, making them difficult to summarise. The largest group included thematic areas where TIA is particularly relevant, such as energy, water and waste management, public services, transport and mobility infrastructure, economic and social cohesion, and affordable housing. Other comments included ways that TIA could be applied, such as adjusting policies to local contexts, understanding whether policies are working effectively, and solving land-use conflicts. A few comments focused more on TIA methodology and level of impact.
Other operational needs for implementing sustainable urban development
When respondents were asked to suggest additional operational needs not previously listed, 79 indicated they had nothing further to add, while 50 provided comments. Of these 50, only 52% actually proposed additional operational needs, while the rest referred to existing categories, particularly access to funding and territorial impact assessment.
Among the new suggestions, many emphasised the importance of developing training and capacity building activities for local authorities’ staff involved in sustainable urban development. Additionally, several respondents stressed the need to empower local authorities and raise their role and voice within higher-level decision-making, advocating for urban policies at the EU level, and promoting place-based approaches and methodologies.
Some comments addressed the values and approaches underlying sustainable urban development, with two advocating for more culturally sensitive policies. Additionally, three respondents criticised the term ‘development’, arguing that ‘sustainability’ should be the primary focus.
About this resource
Similar content
