Key aspects of urban governance
Key principles of good urban governance
Good governance is key to the Urban 2.0 system - it underpins how a city or a town functions. It is closely linked to the urban model factor of having a mindset to achieve good places.
Since we formed our earliest urban environments thousands of years ago, good governance has been at the heart of ensuring urban societies exist and advance equitably, and that urban planning evolves in a good way. Governance needs to be rigorously applied at the right level of detail – not too cumbersome to stop innovation, but not too light that important rules and standards are ignored. Maintaining the right balance of rules / regulations and flexibility is key to ensuring cities and towns are thriving, green and resilient places.
Good governance requires a mindset and a commitment to (1) good performance oversight, (2) effective collaboration, and (3) openness, transparency and integrity. It should include a focus on supporting local initiatives from citizens and businesses. From looking at new ideas from entrepreneurs for Nature-based solutions and smart energy to examining how waste management services can be improved, the principles of good governance need to be consistently applied.
Rethinking urban design and policy-making
How urban areas develop over time is managed through urban master planning – and it is a vital matter for modern times, with many interlinked changes required for cities and towns to be set up for the future. The governance of urban environments is, in many places, too static and too slow to make the many changes we need to move forwards (with localised context always being key). Successful long-term objectives for urban areas need to be achieved through proper partnerships that involve many groups of people ("stakeholders"). Many issues and challenges are tough to deal with and it takes time and effort to engage with many people, but it is important for city and town teams to have a mindset of involving everyone from the beginning of the planning cycle, not waiting until plans are made and then asking for feedback once they are more or less set.
An idea for Urban Future / Urban 2.0 centres
Engagement must be effective. Done well, it can help to shape long-term strategies and it can help to accelerate short-term "tactical" trials and initiatives to try out. Face-to-face discussions (also facilitating online connections) could take place in well-designed "Urban Future / Urban 2.0 centres" that are created to show people what is possible (in many ways - using the urban system as the foundation). They could be used to hold forums and debates, planning sessions and voting reviews. Urban Future / Urban 2.0 centres could be pop-up facilities in vacant city / town centre spaces where businesses have moved out and there are no current tenants (so perhaps they could move around the city / town). Online engagement with people must be simple - it should not be complicated through rules on websites that put people off (such as asking for comments in a complicated way against sub-sections of master plans). Online engagement should be smart and ideally available through an easy to use app as well as a website in which people can be appropriately incentivised to be involved in some ways. Voting options could be shared through such an app. In return, feedback by people on plans and ideas needs to be sensible and considered. Perhaps posting aspects online and then organising Urban Future / Urban 2.0 reviews in a hybrid fashion can work. Easy to use voting solutions, and perhaps translation services sometimes also could be organised.
Implementing change isn't easy - involving everyone helps
The wish list of changes we have for cities and towns is long, and change is usually hard to implement. It takes time and a concerted effort, and sometimes it involves giving things up now so that we can have a better tomorrow. Planning processes and laws in cities and towns around the world have evolved over many years and changing them is usually a complex and time-consuming task. Yet, introducing change can be done quickly if the right approach to bring people on board is taken. Key to this is how urban planners use urban economics in their work. Urban economics uses quantitative science based on theories, models, and empirical evidence. By using urban economics, planners can be more analytical and targeted with their objectives, and they can also make better use of data for decision-making. They can also take the same mindset and apply it to quantified targets for climate adaptation (discussed below).
Do those who oversee cities and towns have time to engage everyone?
Do the people who work in authorities in cities and towns feel they have the time and resources to engage with people who live and work in the areas that they oversee - to seek their views and ideas about changes that need to be made as well as meaningful feedback on master plans? Are they aware of the engagement possibilities that exist, and are they open to learning from examples from around the world? Are urban planning teams invested in changing their urban areas with a mindset to design for time with a good transport & mobility hierarchy, integrating nature-based solutions into the urban fabric, and using good geometry principles to support master planning? If planners are given time and access to resources, and the support to work with a broad network of people which includes citizens and local business people to review ideas, change can happen. These principles apply to the smallest of towns and to the largest of cities, in all regions around the world.
Climate adaptation should be stitched into governance
As discussed in the section on climate initiatives, many groups exist that are focusing on this critical matter for our times.
Climate adaptation can be stitched into the urban system through good governance. Thousands of cities around the world have committed to a green transition [1], but they may not be able to finance all the changes required, or reorganise their financial structures (including resetting how material value is measured) fast enough to make change happen in the time horizon we need it to be done by. Agreeing meaningful targets to work towards and monitor is important. There is a strong link to citizen and business engagement. Discussions about benefits and drawbacks of different initiatives need to be held so that people are prepared to commit towards important changes such as reducing car use and implementing a carbon tax / pricing scheme. Some aspects, such as recycling incentives, can be quite simple to set up, but most simple changes do not have a big impact on climate change. The "big ticket" items are usually harder to implement. The governance of cities and towns is a critical factor to achieving carbon neutrality, lowering emissions and implementing climate adaptation measures – and tough policy decisions need to be made in a way that involves everyone so that changes are understood and accepted (if grudgingly sometimes) by people in all spheres of society (citizens, businesses, academics and others) for change to properly take place.
Good data is important in the climate debate
Various surveys held to date show that confusion exists today about what changes make the biggest difference for climate adaptation. City and town municipalities need to equip citizens and businesses with good data and facts (perhaps through app solutions) to show what climate adaptation measures “shift the dial”, what measures are valuable but not critical, and what measures are minor, ineffective or even harmful. They can engage citizens in a discussion about why a carbon tax is positive for the future of people and the planet, and what it means for industries that are hard to decarbonise - cement manufacture and steelmaking, two crucial parts of the physical urban system, being two examples. This type of engagement can be part of a broader dialogue about improving the liveability and sustainability of our urban environments – to revamp them to be thriving, green and resilient places.
Show me the money...
How the world's metropolises are governed and funded is linked to how much control they have over their roadmaps for the future, and how they move forward with purposeful improvement plans.
Many national governments do not give their cities and towns the financial freedom, the means or the incentives to truly transform their own fortunes. As described in the City / Town of 2050 section, can more nations be like Sweden, which grants its cities and towns the authority to make decisions that are appropriate for the local environment?
Cities and towns should be given control to fund initiatives - with, crucially, appropriate oversight and independent assurance to check adherence to governance rules and standards. If they get themselves into financial trouble, national governments may need to step in and take over. Good governance and clear oversight should prevent this from happening.
It's important to measure progress
We are what we measure. In line with the urban model, through good governance we should measure, monitor and act on the right indicators and targets for urban improvements in our cities and towns, for current and future needs. Agreeing good data to track, and how to collect it in an appropriate way, is an important part of measuring success (which should link to a city / town Vision and a Charter).
Urban diagnostics assessments and indices can help people who govern cities and towns to assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. They can be used to compare and contrast how their city or town is performing against others, and perhaps according to a benchmark.
Five examples of urban indices (links to which are provided in the Governance Tools & Support section > City Resilience Indices) are the Mori-M Global City Power Index, the Urban Environment & Social Inclusion Index, the Arup City Resilience Index, the WGS Urban Resilience Tool and the OECD Resilience Index. Urban diagnostics assessments are discussed in the Urban 2.0 Tools section.
Governance can support public and private sector partnerships
Do the interests of businesses and the private sector align with societal interests and needs for urban environments? From construction businesses and property developers to tourism operators, retailers to energy suppliers, technology businesses to agricultural specialists, there are many examples of how positive impacts can be made.
The opportunity for private sector involvement in urban governance is twofold: first, for cities and towns to work out how to engage and work with businesses of all types, which includes appreciating their commercial objectives. Second, can businesses of all sizes and sectors see value in being part of urban resilience planning, linked to their business strategy and objectives and providing value to their primary stakeholders (such as shareholders)? Perhaps this can be recognised in their own financial accounts and business results, including intangible assets and, for large businesses, linked to international finance and accounting frameworks.
As this article describes, if businesses make time to understand how they can have a positive impact on urban environments, they can create value in many ways. When businesses form a view, they can liaise with local city / town municipal authorities to discuss governance to achieve goals, in an appropriate and clear commercial manner that is bound by agreed rules.
Redefining the principles of value
Can, and should, government and market ecosystems work together as value creators?
Governments already support the private sector in many ways, yet the role of government in stimulating new forms of value and innovation tends to be underplayed. Should capitalism be reinforced by governments and municipal authorities collaborating more closely with businesses on innovation for sustainable and resilient societies and urban environments?
For the private sector to support urban governance, there needs to be healthy competition in the market and no corruption. Can appropriate agreements between public sector bodies and private sector businesses be mutually binding with risk and reward measures, not just aspirational statements “to do good” that have no consequences on private sector service providers if projects / services fail to deliver the expected value and benefits?
A commitment to societal value might incur costs to the private sector. Can these costs be recognised as value? Consider the following examples:
- Could a private housing developer, which strives to achieve financial profits through building and selling homes and maximising the number of houses it can build on a plot of land, commit to their housing developments being fully connected to an urban centre with the best form(s) of active and public transport, such as linking into bike path networks and tram lines or light rail, rather than building access roads for homeowners to use cars? This way of thinking changes the economics of value - and can this value be measured to make it viable?
- Could data about societies be shared in an appropriate and protected way by businesses, for societal benefit in a city / town? For example, a customer relationship solution owned by a food retailer (such as customer loyalty cards) could provide valuable, non-identifiable data to municipal authorities about the grocery habits of citizens, whilst not interfering with business-specific data and algorithms they use for commercial use.
- All businesses can benefit from good Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), to plan for dealing with disruption when problems occur. BCPs can be linked to societal value if businesses have the right mindset to do so, as was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a reporting mechanism used around the world for sustainability and resilience, and they are applicable to urban governance. The UN has reported in recent years that the world is not on track to achieve the SDGs by 2030 (the date when they expire, to be replaced by new global goals, just as the SDGs took over from the Millennium Development Goals in 2015). Can “SDG urban indicators” that align and map to the unilaterally approved set of SDG global indicators (which are typically used for monitoring activities at a country level) be adopted by cities and towns around the world to show how they are contributing towards the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda? Would it be compelling to city and town authorities if they were provided with a common platform to efficiently report SDG progress against urban indicators, which could also provide benchmarking for them against their peers around the world (and to also encourage ideas sharing to achieve goals)? Even better if the urban indicators actually help them to manage their urban goals, which a linked diagnostic tool could help them with. Independent assurance could support city / town self-reporting against the urban indicators.
The role of responsible finance
Should business and city / town economies shift their economic mindset away from “the endless pursuit of economic growth” and towards "sustainable economic value"? We do not always need to build more buildings; we do not need to consume more and more goods. An important part of this discussion is whether new principles of national accounts will be adopted, such as the principles for the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) put forward by the United Nations.
The funding that cities and towns raise is dependent on their access to capital being at affordable interest rates. Long term credit ratings for cities and metropolises are important indicators of their ability to raise funds for the initiatives they need and require, and for the issuance of bonds.
For example, can and should “natural capital banks” be created by nation states to supervise their activities for environmental protection and to add, maintain and govern natural capital value for society? Linked to this important discussion for valuing natural capital in urban environments (and elsewhere), is there scope for a central governing body to oversee the urban project and portfolio criteria used around the world to ensure urban public investments are responsible and sustainable (learning from the example the EU has set up)?
The world’s private sector financial institutions are important stakeholders to changing the principles of economic value, driving sustainable finance and through these mechanisms helping to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. These institutions hold an enormous amount of capital in investment funds, pension funds and other financial instruments. An important factor in the role that finance can play towards shaping urban improvements is whether society is truly ready to tackle climate change, and in particular through the introduction of a carbon tax. Can society overcome the “free rider” problem, in which the future pays for the actions we take today? Will overarching policies and a carbon tax system be manageable, with municipal authorities involved in its implementation, linked to new environmental accounting, and the global finance sector being in a position to allocate capital that aligns with these new rules?
Could a common fund – such as a pre-distribution fund – in which all citizens contribute a small portion for the social and environmental good of the area, be feasible for cities and towns, working with governments (as an additional revenue stream alongside traditional taxation policies)? Could “universal basic capital” be applied for citizens to receive a grant on reaching an age of maturity (e.g. the age of 18). Can seed contributions of equity from companies be invested into a fund that would be used for social needs?
Can government digital currencies assist cities and towns? Could digital currencies potentially be linked to rewards in this form of currency being generated for confirmation of positive actions by citizens and businesses using an app which allows them to use these rewards to benefit society?
