Forward Looking Survey - Main findings and key messages

In conclusion, a selection of the survey’s main findings and key messages are highlighted below.

1. The survey was able to reach its key target: 259 responses – 71% of the total of 364 valid responses – came from urban authorities, and about half of them were Article 11 cities. Moreover, more than half of respondents (54%) came from less developed regions, and 76% of the urban authorities were either small cities or towns. This survey represents a unique opportunity to learn from this specific segment, often underrepresented in these types of studies.

The survey achieved a wide geographical coverage, with responses from 104 regions across 25 EU Member States, but with an overrepresentation of two countries (Poland and Portugal). This shows the commitment and interest in the initiative demonstrated by Polish and Portuguese cities. However, it is important to interpret the results correctly for what they are, not using them as a general statistic on EU cities, but as a consultation of urban stakeholders with an interest in EUI. In future, similar efforts to those made in Poland should be deployed widely for a more balanced survey participation across the EU.

2. According to the survey results, the most important thematic priorities for sustainable urban development are:
   • • • Mobility for the ‘productive, smart and connected’ thematic area, selected as top 1 priority by 30% of respondents and overall (either as top 1, top 2 or top 3 preference) by 70% of them. In the comments, respondents stressed the need to increase active mobility in urban areas, develop walkable and cyclable cities, promote the use of green public transport over private cars, and develop sustainable mobility solutions and traffic management.
       • Climate adaptation for the ‘green’ thematic area, selected as top 1 priority by 33% of respondents and overall by 50% of them. Respondents emphasised the need to enhance green and blue infrastructures, reduce the heat island effect, promote energy efficiency, and tackle extreme weather conditions.
       • Affordable housing for the ‘just and inclusive’ theme, selected as top 1 priority by 32% of respondents and overall by 53% of them.  Here, respondents advocated for increasing the share of public housing to protect vulnerable groups, and for promoting housing policy aimed at addressing current inequalities, regulating the housing market, and tackling gentrification and touristification in city centres.

3. According to the survey results, the most challenging operational needs for sustainable urban development are:

• Strategic design and planning for the ‘strategic policy process’ theme, selected as the top 1 operational need by 45% of respondents, and overall by 76% of them. In the comments, respondents underlined the importance of designing place-based strategies tailored to local needs, in a framework of multi-level governance. They also stressed the importance of goal setting and strategic visioning, while also ensuring the necessary funding sources and mechanisms to successfully implement strategies.
• Cooperation with other layers of government for the ‘governance and cooperation’ theme, selected as the top 1 operational need by 45% of respondents, and overall by 55% of them. On this topic, respondents emphasised the need for stronger mechanisms of cooperation, harmonised regulations and alignment of strategic frameworks across levels of government. This approach would help overcome various obstacles, including political challenges, diverging priorities and bureaucratic barriers.
• Access to public funding, for the theme of ‘funding and finance’, selected as the top 1 operational need by 58% of respondents, and overall by 63% of them. Here, respondents highlighted the complexity of the funding application process, and the misalignment between funding criteria and local priorities. They called for simplified procedures, as well as capacity building to improve their ability to attract more grants, and effectively combine multiple funding sources.
• Planning at the scale of functional urban areas (FUAs) for the ‘territorial focus and scale’ theme, selected as top 1 operational need by 52% of respondents, and overall by 59% of them.  In the comments, respondents highlighted the challenges of delineating the FUA, fostering cooperation among municipalities and developing joint projects across administrative boundaries. They emphasised the need for administrative and legal frameworks, along with planning instruments at the FUA scale, to implement coordinated policies.

4. The most important priorities for sustainable urban development vary according to the level of development of the region and the size of the city, but similar choices are made by both large cities and developed regions on one hand, and small cities and less developed regions on the other. For instance, respondents from larger cities and more developed regions prioritised circular economy, research and innovation, and climate adaptation and mitigation. In contrast, respondents from smaller cities and towns, and from less developed regions, prioritised job creation, digital transition, and water and waste management. In the survey replies, the importance of affordable housing and social inclusion increases as the size of the city grows, while the opposite occurs for culture, heritage, health and wellbeing.

This pattern is significant, and holds true when examining needs and challenges. Larger cities often face challenges like land consumption and social disparities, whereas smaller cities struggle with issues like the digital divide, unemployment and inadequate infrastructures. At the same time, the findings also show different opportunities for development, where larger cities leverage innovation potential to drive future-oriented developments, and smaller ones capitalise on identity, social cohesion and quality of life.

Although these differences may seem predictable, they emphasise the importance of avoiding a tendency to apply similar policies across all urban areas, developing one-size-fits-all solutions, or to transfer practices designed in larger cities and more developed regions to smaller ones without properly considering the context. The findings underline the influence of local context and the need for place-based policies. They seem to suggest that a tailored policy approach is essential for smaller cities in less developed regions.

5. When looking at the top operational needs for sustainable urban development, the differences in prioritisation according to the size of cities or the development level of regions where respondents are located is less clear-cut. The level of development of the region does not have a strong impact. There are some differences according to the size of the city of respondents, for example smaller cities seem to focus more on strategy design, while larger ones focus more on strategy implementation. Multi-level and multi-stakeholder governance is a top need in larger cities, and citizen engagement in smaller ones. The combination of funds is more pressing for larger cities than for smaller ones. These differences reflect the different levels of complexity of the governance system, and the different structures, capacity and resources of local administrations according to city size. It is important to take these elements into account, especially when designing capacity building and training for local administrations.

6. Cities responding to the survey use a wide range of EU funds and programmes to support their sustainable urban development and broader urban policies and strategies. Around half of survey respondents reported that they had used 2-5 different types of EU initiatives. The most used initiatives are those pertaining to cohesion policy, with 73% of respondents using national or regional operational programmes, 46% Interreg, 29% URBACT, and 25% the European Urban Initiative. It is also worth noting that other programmes not specifically designed to sustain urban policy were selected, such as Erasmus Plus (27%), Horizon Europe (26%) and LIFE (22%).

Despite this widespread use of EU initiatives, respondents still indicate that the most important type of support they need is more accessible information on different types of EU initiatives and funding opportunities. According to respondents, this is the most interesting feature of a centralised knowledge platform on sustainable urban development, such as Portico.

7. Two thirds of respondents are familiar with EUI, implying that knowledge about the initiative is spreading. However, the percentage shrinks to 28% of respondents who know Portico, and 25% who have participated in EUI activities.  These results show that there is scope for enlarging the share of users and participants – and that the survey succeeded in capturing the views of cities that might not typically participate in such EU-level activities. This is also the case for the Capacity Building strand, which showed lower participation rates by respondents so far (13% overall) in contrast, for instance, to the Innovative Actions strand. However, many respondents expressed interest in participating in the near future. 

There is especially high interest for City-to-City Exchanges as a capacity building format. Attention should be paid to make sure that cities are able to participate in this activity by tackling some of the obstacles that hinder participation (e.g. lack of knowledge about the offer).

8. The Innovative Actions strand of EUI is quite popular among respondents. More than one third of respondents associate EUI with the word ‘innovation’, and 22% of them have participated in one of the activities of the strand. At the same time, not all cities across the EU have the capacity or the opportunity to experiment with innovative projects. The survey results show that several barriers prevent cities from innovating, the most recurrent being pressures of day-to-day work, lack of co-financing capacity, and resistance to change. Capacity building activities to overcome some of those barriers to innovation would be beneficial, helping increase the general capacity and knowhow of urban authorities.