Sustainable urban development: A scoping review of barriers to the public policy and administration

Abstract

Sustainable urban development (SUD) gained prominence after the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), countering imbalanced growth that was impacting society, the economy, and the environment. Research on SUD is rapidly expanding among scholars and practitioners, analysing theoretical and empirical aspects. However, SUD encounters multiple barriers in public policies and administration. This study examines academic literature to identify trends in barriers hindering effective policy development based on policy cycles. Through analysis of 90 records, 183 fragments express barriers to SUD, categorized into five types: organisational, interaction-specific, SUD characteristics, contextual and policy-related. The article offers insights to enhance SUD policies and overcome the identifying barriers.

Keywords

Policy cycle public policy public administration sustainable development goals

Introduction

On November 15, 2022, the United Nations (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs disclosed a revised global population target of eight billion people, exceeding previous projections and highlighting ongoing population growth. Notably, half of the world’s populace now resides in urban areas, as emphasized in the recent UN-Habitat World Cities Report titled ‘Envisaging the Future of Cities' (UN-Habitat, 2022). Urbanization, a longstanding trend, intersects with the concept of Sustainable Urban Development (SUD), originating from the 1987 Brundtland Report (UN, 1987). SUD has since gained prominence across political, practical, and scholarly spheres (Hall, 2007; Leman and Cox, 1991), although criticisms persist regarding the need for better governance (Bogers et al., 2022; Klopp and Petretta, 2017; Ripoll Gonzalez and Gale, 2023).

The UN timeline for realizing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also underscores the imperative for systemic transformations within urban ecosystems, especially highlighted in recent UN reports (2023a, 2023b). These reports advocate for comprehensive urban strategies to meet the SDGs, alongside recognizing institutional and inter-organizational barriers hindering policy effectiveness (Shawoo et al., 2023; Tchinda and Talbot, 2024). Moreover, systemic crises and governmental responsiveness deficiencies exacerbate these challenges by creating a system-quake (Bouckaert and Galego, n.d.; Seabrooke et al., 2004).

While existing literature acknowledges several barriers to the effectiveness of SUD policies (Filion et al., 2015), a comprehensive review within the public policy and administration domain is lacking. This paper aims to fill this gap by systematically reviewing public policy and administration publications and answering the following research question: What are the barriers obstructing the development of effective SUD policies?

In public administration, “barriers” encompass factors impeding public service delivery or policy goal achievement (Galera et al., 2008; Mu and Wang, 2022). These may include structural, systemic, or political issues, as well as communication and coordination challenges among stakeholders. Overcoming these barriers necessitates strategic planning, policy innovation, and collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders (Cinar et al., 2019).

Responding to the call to use more policy process theories to open the black box of sustainability policies (Ken and Rogge, 2018), this paper particularly relies on the policy cycle model (Dunn, 2017) to dissect decision-making processes integral to SUD policy planning and execution. Therefore, the policy cycle’s stages—agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation—are examined to identify specific barriers hindering SUD initiatives at various stages (Howlett et al., 2009; Peters, 2015).

The subsequent sections of this article delineate the theoretical and methodological framework employed in the scoping review protocol, followed by the presentation of review results. Various barriers identified in the literature are then analyzed within the policy cycle framework, paving the way for concluding remarks and recommendations to advance sustainable urban development research and public policy and administration practices.

Barriers to the policy cycle: Theoretical framework for the scoping review

Public policy is traditionally conceptualized as a constellation of actions and decisions undertaken by governmental bodies and officials, frequently in collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders such as businesses and civil society organizations (Jenkins, 1978). These efforts aim to address public issues and achieve objectives deemed beneficial for society at large (Dye, 1972; Lasswell, 1956). For analytical purposes, scholars have delineated the public policy-making process into five key stages: agenda-setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation (Howlett et al., 2009; Peters, 2015). These stages encompass identifying and prioritizing societal problems that necessitate governmental attention and intervention (agenda setting); formulating and selecting policy options to solve issues identified (formulation); deciding whether to accept a proposed policy option, often through legislative approval or executive orders (decision-making); enacting the adopted policies through regulation, resource allocation, and agency execution (implementation); and assessing policy effectiveness in achieving its goals and the necessity for modifications (evaluation).

The development of public policies is conceptualized within the policy cycle framework as a linear progression from inputs (the policy problems to be addressed) to outputs (the realized policy solutions). However, this five-stage framework’s analytical and heuristic capabilities are limited without considering the barriers within the policy process. Indeed, research in various policy domains, including public sector innovation (Cinar et al., 2019; De Vries et al., 2016), the circular economy in the construction industry (Ababio et al., 2023), and the agri-food sector (Acampora et al., 2023), illustrates that the progression from agenda setting to evaluation in policy making is seldom linear with barriers frequently emerging due to complex interactions among a diverse array of policy actors and organizations, challenging the seamless advancement through the prescribed stages. These interactions, constrained by institutional contexts, frequently lead to discrepancies between the initially intended policy objectives and the outcomes achieved (Esposito et al., 2022). Organizational, institutional, and interactional barriers significantly affect policy outputs, necessitating an in-depth understanding of the policy development process (Esposito et al., 2021).

In this article on SUD policy barriers, we particularly draw upon (Cinar et al., 2019), which categorizes barriers into four types: organizational barriers, which relate to the internal difficulties public administrations encounter in policymaking; interaction-specific barriers, which refer to obstacles inherent in the dynamics among actors involved in the policy cycle; policy characteristics-related barriers, which are issues associated with SUD that can create administrative obstacles; contextual barriers, which arise from the specific and diverse contexts in which SUD policies are implemented, potentially restricting their effectiveness. We examine the emergence of these barriers at different stages of SUD policy cycles, thus shedding light on those factors that, from agenda setting to evaluation, prevent SUD policymakers from achieving intended outcomes (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Barriers to the policy cycle dynamics.

Methodological framework

Database search

The scoping review methodology offers a systematic approach for exploring and mapping existing evidence in research fields, allowing for the identification of knowledge gaps in the literature that has not been extensively reviewed (Harms and Goodwin, 2019; Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2015). This article presents a scoping review to identify relevant gaps in the literature concerning sustainable urban development from the perspective of the policy cycle.

Data was collected on October 31, 2022, by retrieving studies from two multidisciplinary databases: Web of Science and Scopus. The search keywords used were “sustainable urban development.” The initial search yielded nearly 8000 entries, with 3491 from Scopus and 4406 from Web of Science. After filtering the results based on the research area (Social Science + Public Administration) in both databases, 2169 documents were identified that mentioned the keywords in the title or abstract. Following the eligibility criteria, 455 documents were selected for abstract reading. The analysed documents consisted of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters.

Eligibility criteria

The ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ extension for Scoping Review (Tricco et al., 2018) was employed. Studies from the search were included if they met the following criteria:

• Field: Articles and book chapters should examine sustainable urban development, focusing on public administration and the policy cycle.

• Topic: Studies were included if they provided evidence on barriers in combination with the policy cycle. Documents that merely mentioned the policy stages and illustrative examples were excluded.

• Study design: The review included theoretical and empirical studies to encompass all contributions exploring this research field.

• Language: Only documents written in English were considered eligible.

• Year of publication: No specific period was selected. The included documents were published between 1991 and 2022.

• Publication types: Only international peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters were included.

Review method and coding

The authors conducted a full-text review of 157 documents, including 90 studies in the final review database. The PRISMA flow chart diagram presents the study’s systematic selection method and process (See Figure 2). In the first stage, the documents were assessed by screening titles, abstracts and keywords to determine whether they addressed SUD and the policy cycle. In the second stage, the full text of the remaining documents was screened to determine if they met the inclusion criteria by revealing barriers within the public administration that influence the policy cycle.

Figure 2.

PRISMA flow diagram for literature review.

The last phase of the selection protocol involved coding the documents included in the final database, and it allowed for the identification and coding of 183 text fragments related to barriers within the public administration. These fragments were subsequently analysed using the policy cycle framework. During the coding process, deductive and inductive approaches were employed to classify the barriers. Initially, a coding book was developed based on existing literature, providing categories for classification. Codes were used to cluster the barriers based on each typology defined in the framework. Clusters were developed based on the frequency of each barrier mentioned in the papers. The identified barriers were further clustered to each policy cycle stage according to what was identified from the original source. The results and label were further refined and discussed among the authors in multiple meetings throughout the writing process. Ultimately, the barriers were grouped into five labels, adapted from Cinar et al. (2019), based on synonymous terms.

Results

This section provides a summary of the general characteristics of the identified studies. The SUD studies related to public policy and administration are found in this study as a growing and recent interest from academics. The selected documents date from the past two decades and have been aligned with the UN agendas promoting sustainability since the 1990s, moving to the Millennium Goals (2000) and the SDGs (2015). Despite the UN agenda focusing on developing countries at the beginning of the century, most of the studies analysed in this review were from developed countries and European countries. It highlights that the keywords searched in this review are less present in the academic production from the Global South countries on this subject.

Two main findings are relevant regarding the journals publishing the documents. First, the subject area of the journals is urban or regional studies, with less public policy and administration. Second, the scope of some journals is more regional (e.g., European Planning Studies), which indicates more cases focusing on this region. The reviewed documents cover many public policy domains, emphasising territorial-related domains focusing on urban planning, development, and environmental issues (see Appendix 3).

Publication year

Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of studies between 1991 and 2022. Of the total studies, 21 (23.3%) were published between 1991 and 2011, while the number of publications increased after 2012, with 69 (76.6%) published in the last decade. Approximately 13% of the reviewed studies were published in 2020.

Figure 3.

Year of publication for document included in the review.

Countries

The studies included in the review encompassed 35 countries and two regions, as shown in Appendix 1. Among the studies, 14% were conducted in the UK. In addition, most of the documents (76%) focused on European countries, and around 9% examined Southeast Asia. Additionally, limited studies were conducted in Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and Latin America.

Journals

The reviewed documents were published in 48 different journals and seven books. The top four journals with the highest number of publications on the topic were: Sustainability (9), Regional Studies (5), European Planning Studies (5) and Habitat International (5). As this review specifically explores the attention given to the topic by public administration and policies scholarship, we identified six public administration journals that published articles included in the final database: Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration (2), Policy and Society, Public Management Review, Regulation and Governance, Lex-Localis, and Environment and Planning-C Politics and Space (each with one publication).

Regarding the academic discipline of journals, 67% fall under territorial studies, such as geography, planning and development, and urban studies. This finding indicates the limited academic production of public administration and policy scholars in this field and their publications in journals in these disciplinary areas (See Appendix 2).

Policy domains

The range of policy domains examined in the studies underscores the significance of urban planning as an integrated approach to address economic, social and environmental challenges. This focus becomes particularly relevant considering that numerous studies have highlighted the issues associated with urban sprawl in various countries (Aerni, 2016; Cavaco et al., 2020; Karppi and Vakkuri, 2020; Qian and Wong, 2012).

Types of barriers

This section presents the findings based on the five types of barriers: organisational, interaction-specific, SUD-related characteristics, contextual, and policy process-related barriers. The percentage of each barrier is calculated based on the total number of barriers identified (n = 183). Table 1 displays the correlation between barriers and the policy cycle. The absolute number represents the frequency of the barrier that appeared in the analysed documents. The percentage per policy cycle stage is the sum of each barrier identified for each stage.

Table 1.

Barriers at each stage of the policy cycle.

Policy cycle	Organizational barriers	Interaction-specific barriers	SUD characteristics related barriers	Policy process related barriers	Contextual barriers	%
Agenda-setting	Lack of available resources (5/2.73%)	Political entities (1/0,55%)	-	Lack of integration (1/0,55%)	-	5.46
Agenda-setting	Rigid organisational structure/culture (2/1.09%)	Political entities (1/0,55%)	-	Complexity (1/0,55%)	-	5.46
Formulation	Ineffective administration of process activities (1/0.55%)	Political entities (1)	Lack of environmental awareness (1/0.55%)	Lack of integration (3)		7.65
	Resistance or lack of support from specific actor(s) (2/1.09%)				Laws, regulations (1)
	Lack of available resources (1/0.55%)			Complexity (1)	Lack of standardisation (1)
	Rigid organisational structure/culture (1/0.55%)
Decision-making	Resistance or lack of support from specific actor(s) (7/3.83%)	Political entities (1/0.55%)	-	Lack of interoperability/Decision-making types (2/1.09%)		10.38
	Rigid organisational structure/culture (2/1.09%)			Lack of public participation (1/0.55%)	Laws, regulations (3/1.64%
				Policy problem definition (1/0.55%)	Symbolic Exclusion/Inclusion mechanisms (1/0.55%)
				Incompatibility/Incoherence (1/0.55%)
Implementation	Ineffective administration of process activities (16/8.74%)	Citizens & NGOs (2/1.09%)	Ineffective urban planning (1/0.55%)	Lack of integration (13/7.10%) Complexity (3/1.64%)	Laws, regulations (4/2.19%)	65.57
	Resistance or lack of support from specific actor(s) (13/7.10%)	Business as contractors/Privatisation (3/1.64%)	Lack of basic provision and protection of SUD (water, waste disposal, housing, …) (8/4.37%)	Lack of information (4/2.19%)	Lack of standardisation (3/1.64%)
	Lack of available resources (16/8.74%)	Political entities (3/1.64%)	Lack of environmental awareness (1/0.55%)	Lack of public participation (3/1.64%)	Geography (2/1.09%)
	Rigid organisational structure/culture (5/2.73%)	Academics as co-creators (1/0.55%)		Policy problem definition (2/1.09%)
	Lack of skills/knowledge/expertise (9/4.92%)	Closed networks/Centralized policy field (2/1.09%)		Incompatibility/Incoherence (6/3.28%)
Evaluation	Ineffective administration of process activities (4/2.19%)	Citizens & NGOs (1/0.55%)	Ineffective urban planning (1/0.55%)	Complexity (1/0.55%)	Lack of standardisation (1/0.55%)	10.93
	Lack of available resources (3/1.64%)	Business as contractors/Privatisation (1/0.55%)		Lack of information (1/0.55%)
	Rigid organisational structure/culture (1/0.55%)	Political entities (1/0.55%)<		Lack of public participation (2/1.09%)
	Lack of skills/knowledge/expertise (1/0.55%)	Interest groups (2/1.09%)
Total in %	48.63	10.38	6.56	25.14	9.29	100

Most barriers identified in the records analyzed are related to the implementation stage (66%). Organizational and institutional barriers often impede successful policy implementation, such as a lack of resources, skills, and ineffective administrative procedures. Limited resources, a lack of a tradition of evaluation, and fragmentation in administrative procedures frequently influence the evaluation stage. Decision-making processes are often influenced by resistance or a lack of support from relevant actors and laws and regulations. The resistance of specific actors characterizes the main impediments to the formulation stage, which is influenced by laws and regulations and a lack of integration for sustainability. Conversely, agenda-setting can be hindered by a lack of available resources, political entities, a rigid organizational structure or culture, and the complexity of setting the policy agenda.

Organisational barriers

The reviewed literature identifies several barriers that can be attributed to internal challenges within the public administration, leading to poorly designed or implemented SUD policies. Organisational barriers were mentioned in 89 instances (48%) (See Table 1). The most common type of organisational barrier reported is the lack of economic, financial and human resources. Effective public policies require adequate resources for successful implementation (Casiano and Cheryl, 2015; Howlett et al., 2009). This barrier is often associated with a shortage of qualified human resources for policy implementation (Chelleri et al., 2015; Domorenok et al., 2021; Janurova et al., 2020). For instance, in Veneto (Italy), the lack of qualified human resources is considered the ‘most relevant obstacle to developing a decentralised full-fledged SUD strategy’ (Domorenok et al., 2021, 71)—financial resources and budget availability constraint for SUD policies, particularly at the local level. For example, implementing smart city strategies in the Czech Republic often faces limitations due to financial resources (Janurova et al., 2020). Turkish cities also encountered difficulties developing Local Agenda 21 (LA21) due to insufficient information and financial support (Varol et al., 2011).

Specific actors, such as politicians (Gallez et al., 2013; Henry and Paris, 2009; Janurova et al., 2020; Polverari et al., 2022), bureaucrats (Goebel, 2007), senior managers (Davison et al., 2016), and sometimes citizens, refrain from supporting policies, projects, or master plans, withholding information from the government (El-Sherif and Khalil, 2022; Van Stigt, Driessen, and Spit, 2013), and avoiding support initiatives from associations such as urban agriculture in Warsaw (Prové et al., 2016).

A lack of a coordination culture leads to ineffective administration of process activities, resulting in delays in programmes and policy implementation (Medeiros and Van Der Zwet, 2020) and a lack of articulation between different levels of government in Portugal (Cavaco et al., 2020). Furthermore, a general lack of commitment to sustainability at the senior management level is evident in the case of Cape Town’s policy change to foster sustainability after the apartheid period (Davison et al., 2016). The lack of state leadership regarding ecologically sustainable development at the local level in Victoria, Australia, is a key factor contributing to ineffective administration and policy outcomes (Collia and March, 2012).

In Dortmund (Germany), a rigid hierarchical political-administrative decision-making structure illustrates a rigid organisational structure, creating a disconnection between citizens’ needs and political decisions in neighbourhood revitalisation (old governance). The “new urban governance” allowed local associations and NGOs to collaborate directly with local authorities and lead neighbourhood projects (Jacquier, 2005). Hierarchical models have also created a dependency of cities on the upper levels of government in Spain regarding policy transfer to implement EU policy goals, such as URBAN (1994-99), URBAN II (2000-06), Iniciativa Urbana (2007-2013), and Estrategias de Desarollo Urban Sostenible Integrado – EDUSI (2-14-2020) (Carpenter et al., 2020).

The final barrier identified was a lack of skills, knowledge, and expertise, particularly regarding EU funding and project management. For instance, constraints were observed in implementing EU cohesion policy under the Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas (JESSICA) framework at the local level in two regions, Wielkopolskie in Poland and Andalusia in Spain (Dąbrowski, 2015). Insufficient knowledge in funding management raised concerns among private investors collaborating with local authorities. Similarly, in Poland, there was an insufficient level of knowledge among local government employees regarding modern technologies related to the management of small cities’ development as smart cities, which restricted sustainable development and hindered citizens’ access to municipal services and facilities (Makieła et al., 2022, 98). In China, the lack of skilled staff to oversee construction sites resulted in a symbolic way of inspection, consequently impacting the effectiveness of the implementation system in the country (Romano, 2014). In the UK, the absence of generic skills for integration and policy delivery in projects led to “difficulties in teambuilding and adaptability of the professional workforce” (Roberts, 2009, 138). Finally, Southeast Asia’s lack of expert staff was used as an argument to revert to centralisation and promote the privatisation of public services, with decentralisation becoming merely symbolic in the region (Sheng, 2010).

Interaction-specific barriers

Interaction-specific barriers were mentioned in 19 (10%) instances and relate to the involvement of various actors in the policy-making process. For instance, a comparative analysis between France and the UK reveals that policy networks are dominated by political elites, interests, and parties, excluding grassroots organisations (Béal, 2012). In Slovenia, political parties often use SUD discourse solely for election campaigns, as evidenced by the analysis of parliamentary party preferences for local urban development (Pesch et al., 2017). Similarly, in New York, sustainability narratives are employed by politicians primarily for city branding purposes rather than effective implementation (Ripoll Gonzalez and Gale, 2023).

Although coalition formations exist between the public and private sectors in policy formulation, such interactions have led to a lack of trust from local authorities regarding the private sector’s ability to deliver sustainable projects within European and British networks (Moore and Rydin, 2008). Furthermore, the privatisation of commons, such as the concession of beaches to five-star private hotels in Egypt, highlights the significant social injustice faced by the country, as it restricts people’s access to public space and resources. This situation is influenced by special interest groups in the market and a flawed institutional framework, resulting in a series of failed policies, planning, and market mechanisms (El-Kholei, 2020). In Spain, rescaling urban development policy revealed weak mobilisation and participation of citizen/interest groups in the implementation of cohesion policy, exposing a deficiency in policy integration driven by the national government’s management of EU funding (Mendez et al., 2021).

Top-down neighbourhood management systems create gaps in citizens’ participation and cooperation, particularly affecting the integration of foreign citizens in Dortmund (Jacquier, 2005). Similarly, the lack of integration in urban sustainability is evident in the housing market renewal of three English neighbourhoods, emphasising the need for holistic “integration and communication between various regeneration agencies, employment agencies and potential employers” (Turcu, 2012, 142). The field of sustainable construction and policy learning across the EU and national levels exhibits a closed network, limiting information exchange between the EU and national levels. This leads to the “absence of a European-wide construction industry” based on a sustainable construction agenda (Rydin and Moore, 2009).

Finally, difficulties arise in “ensuring that academic research could support the development of public policy and knowledge without a paid commission” in the Great Manchester project for a just city (Perry and Atherton, 2017, 45).

SUD characteristics related

SUD-related characteristics are addressed on 12 occasions (6%), primarily focusing on service provision and the protection of natural resources. Lagos, Nigeria, one of Africa’s largest cities, presents most of the barriers in this case. These barriers include water and waste management, housing, pollution, sanitation, flooding, and limited access to these services for beneficiaries (Aina et al., 1994; Chin and Mees, 2021). Despite rapid urbanisation in Lagos, urban environmental policies and infrastructure reveal the need to improve urban services “rather than raising the lifestyles and consumption patterns of the poor to the unsustainable levels of the rich” (Aina et al., 1994, 201).

The case of Egypt highlights the failure of urban planning and the need for improved planning structures to overcome institutional barriers that hinder effective policy implementation (El-Kholei, 2020). In addition to administrative fragmentation and the token use of decentralisation, the lack of effective urban planning in Southeast Asia hinders the progress of good urban governance (Sheng, 2010).

Land use planning issues are also related to SUD. For example, in the case of Austin, Texas, there is an underlying “environmental racism” evident in city zoning rules and plans developed in 1931, which resulted in white planners determining the concentration of the “unpleasant party of the community - people of color and industry” (Tretter, 2013, 10) in the outskirts of the city. In Bangladesh, environmental unawareness is present where local officials did not give sufficient attention to issues such as “overaged vehicles contributing to pollution, poor management of solid waste, continuous reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation and vehicle fuel, continued reliance on groundwater extraction instead of city water supply” (Mahmudul Haque et al., 2022, 1477).

Contextual barriers

Contextual barriers play a crucial role in policy-making and have been mentioned on 17 occasions (9%) among the identified barriers. These factors primarily restrict SUD based on legal frameworks and regulations rather than territorial factors (see Table 1). Studies have highlighted that ambiguous laws and regulations limit residents’ participation in informing the planning of urban green infrastructure in Finland (Faehnle et al., 2014). Restrictive regulations in the building process have been examined in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and France. Each case underscores the political, economic, cultural and institutional contexts and past events shaping the respective country’s development (Henry and Paris, 2009). Legislative obstacles have also been identified as barriers public administration representatives face while preparing and implementing the Smart City strategy in the Czech Republic (Janurova et al., 2020). Regulatory challenges emerge in implementing the cohesion policy among the European Union member states, specifically concerning the European Regional and Development Fund (Van der Zwet and Ferry, 2019).

The lack of standardisation in legal support and framework for urban planning is a critical issue in Egypt (El-Kholei, 2020). In the UK, the absence of a legal body for risk reduction and financing leaves neighbourhoods in Manchester more vulnerable and unprotected against climate change, disasters, and rapid urbanisation (Wamsler and Lawson, 2011).

Geographical barriers are related to spatial segregation resulting from low revenues and rapid urbanisation, intensifying the challenges for sustainable urban development in Polokwane, South Africa. This case provides empirical evidence supporting legislative policy directions for spatial transformation towards sustainable development of human settlements (Moffat et al., 2021).

Symbolic mechanisms of inclusion highlight the lack of a democratic system for public participation in decision-making in Egypt, where the influence of small groups takes precedence in urban planning policy-making processes (El-Kholei, 2020).

Policy process-related barriers

Policy process-related barriers are the second most frequently mentioned (46 occasions, 25%) (See Table 1). Due to the non-linear nature of the policy process, the lack of integration leads to a perception of sustainability as an isolated issue to be addressed (Davison et al., 2016). However, fragmented policy development, a mismatch between and across policy areas for SUD, problem definition, and ineffective actions among government, citizens and industry make sustainability a wicked problem that requires a holistic plan for effective solutions (Turcu, 2012). Moreover, the lack of policy integration demonstrates a ‘silo thinking’ (Roberts, 2009), failing to address problems and neglecting the aggregate impact of design and management decisions on the macro-urban environment level (Moore and Rydin, 2008).

Incompatibility and incoherence are found in the mismatch between discourse and practices in policy implementation, with monitoring often being merely symbolic or used for “greenwashing” purposes in Chinese cities (Romano, 2014). For instance, in Nanjing, China, the “urban-rural integration policy in the master plan was too conceptual and lacked an effective action plan” (Qian and Wong, 2012, 414). Similarly, in Oslo, Norway, the rhetoric of sustainability in policy-making contrasts with the reality of a segregated municipality, contradicting claims of developing a socially just city (Andersen and Skrede, 2017, 581).

The complexity of the policy process is compounded by the lack of a clear definition of social sustainability concepts (Elander and Gustavsson, 2019) and sustainable communities (Evans, 2011). Conceptual problems also arise when classifying countries as “developed” or “developing” based on their SUD initiatives, leading to misconceptions about effective policies (Leman and Cox, 1991). Leman and Cox (1991) argue that “without institutional changes in the development and management of cities and the natural environment, sustainable urban development will not occur” (p. 221). In Seattle, the reform of rational politics has evolved from technocratic governance to grassroots initiatives (Karvonen, 2010). The politicisation of EU fund implementation at the local level has increased barriers to Cohesion policy implementation, as Mendez et al. (2021) demonstrated in their analysis of examples from Poland, Spain and the Netherlands. Local self-build cohousing initiatives in Hamburg, Germany, reveal that “SUD is an empty signifier, understood as a discursive nodal point uniting the fields of urban planning and urban restructuring” (Scheller and Thörn, 2018, 929).

A top-down approach to governance is examined as a potential path to promote sustainability in Saudi Arabia (Aina et al., 2019). Another top-down policy implementation structure is seen in Agenda 21 in China, specifically in Guangzhou, where public participation and opinion are lacking in the local implementation of sustainable development (Seabrooke et al., 2004). In Utrecht, citizens perceive public participation in the planning process as unsatisfactory (Van Stigt, Driessen, and Spit, 2013). The minimum level of interest in promoting public participation in decision-making on urban environmental issues in Manchester highlights the top-down organisational structure of the municipality (Béal, 2012).

The lack of information about climate-related issues leads to a “lack of detailed systematic reporting on investments and contributions to CO2 reduction in cities”, as observed in the monitoring of climate data in London (Alkhani, 2020). Similarly, in Taipei, Taiwan, the lack of data to measure sustainability impedes policy evaluation (Huang et al., 1998). According to Ddiba et al. (2020, p. 6), the “lack of an information-sharing culture among local stakeholders and availability of information incomprehensible to non-experts creates low levels of information transparency”.

The definition of a problem is linked to the deliberate adoption of policies that prioritise urban growth in the countryside at the expense of rural areas, as illustrated by the case of Nanjing in China. Consequently, the lack of a clear definition of the problem undermines the importance of environmental issues in the new integrative planning process for urban-rural integration (Qian and Wong, 2012).

Citizens’ participation in decision-making within the Turkey Local Agenda 21 framework was found to be insufficient, as the top-to-bottom system of the LA21 is perceived as part of the bureaucracy rather than as a solution to the problems (Varol et al., 2011).

Discussion

Our study introduces a strategic framework to understand and address obstacles hindering the effective development of SUD policies. By meticulously examining each phase of the policy cycle, we identify specific barriers that impede the successful implementation of SUD initiatives at various points within the cycle. Moreover, by highlighting the barriers encountered at different stages of the policymaking process, our analysis establishes a foundational basis for a roadmap that enhances SUD policymaking within public administrations, tailored to each stage.

Understanding barriers through the policy cycle: Laying the groundwork for a strategic approach

We analyzed reported different barriers to SUD situating them within the policy cycle to address our research question concerning barriers to SUD policies within public administration. This analysis offers valuable insights into creating more effective SUD policy-making. While no single type of barrier is exclusively associated with a specific policy stage, we can discern which barriers are more prevalent in each stage by examining the combination of barriers and the policy cycle, as presented in Table 1.

Identifying and learning from barriers associated with each stage of the policy cycle enables policymakers and stakeholders to develop targeted strategies to overcome these obstacles and promote more effective policy-making processes for sustainable urban development.

Agenda-setting is often influenced by urgent social needs such as natural disasters and influential lobbying strategies, interest groups, advocacy groups, and policy communities (for specific examples, see: Chelleri et al. (2015); Wamsler & Lawson (2011). Integrating citizens into the agenda-setting process and fostering coherent political discourse can effectively overcome barriers limiting citizens’ participation and manipulation of discourse in setting the policy agenda for SUD. Moreover, the political exploitation of SUD policies for electoral gain highlights a lack of policy coherence, where post-election support fails to sustain SUD policy narratives. This misalignment between political rhetoric and ongoing initiatives hinders a consistent SUD approach. Moreover, exclusionary mechanisms silence marginalized voices, hindering the integration of community perspectives in defining SUD policy problems.

Formulation requires the development of concrete alternatives and solutions after identifying a problem. However, ‘silo thinking’ (Collia and March, 2012), a lack of political will, and legislative ambiguity create additional challenges. Establishing a circular interaction mechanism between top-down and bottom-up initiatives can foster strong state leadership and promote knowledge sharing across different policy areas for SUD (Bothello and Mehrpouya, 2019; Faehnle et al., 2014; Karppi and Vakkuri, 2020)—limited knowledge-sharing results in disjointed SUD options. Therefore, dialogue among stakeholders is vital for inclusive policy approaches.

Decision-making, concentrated in the hands of formal government officeholders, is influenced by structural and institutional regulations. Public participation through a decentralized hierarchical political-administrative structure (El-Kholei, 2020; Jacquier, 2005; Karvonen, 2010), greater political interest (Henry and Paris, 2009), and involvement of grassroots organizations in the policy network can improve decision-making processes (Béal, 2012). Decision-making often favours technocratic structures, suppressing resident and stakeholder involvement. This interaction-specific barrier perpetuates existing power dynamics, hindering innovative SUD solutions.

Implementation depends on coherence between policy content, solutions, budget allocation, and bureaucrats' actions in delivering public services (Howlett et al., 2009). Establishing a culture of better coordination and management within public administration is critical (Carpenter et al., 2020; Domorenok et al., 2021; Mahmudul Haque et al., 2022; Mendez et al., 2021). Prioritizing human and financial resources for SUD policy implementation and fostering interaction with other levels of government are essential for better service provision (Domorenok et al., 2021; Gallez et al., 2013; Mendez et al., 2021). Implementation faces organizational barriers, such as resource scarcity and bureaucratic inertia, obstructing SUD policy translation into tangible outcomes. Regulatory and governance challenges further complicate policy execution.

Evaluation is crucial for assessing policy effectiveness. SUD policies should establish a more integrated agenda that aligns with city administration, incorporates public opinion, and adopts appropriate monitoring and feedback dynamics (Bothello and Mehrpouya, 2019; Buyannemekh et al., 2023; Hosseini et al., 2016; Sheng, 2010). Evaluation encounters organizational hurdles like resource constraints and cultural issues, limiting administrative capacity to assess SUD initiative effectiveness. Inadequate evaluation mechanisms obscure policy impacts, hindering iterative refinement (Ddiba et al., 2020).

These findings lay the groundwork for a strategic approach (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1993) to overcoming barriers to SUD policies across the policy cycle. Identifying specific barriers at each stage can offer corresponding policy recommendations.

A roadmap to enhance SUD policymaking within public administrations

Based on the aforementioned considerations, we outline a roadmap to enhance policymaking within public administrations. Indeed, barriers, though not unique to any stage of the policy cycle, necessitate specific mitigation strategies.

In the agenda-setting phase, social urgencies such as natural disasters often initiate policy discussions, yet there is frequently an absence of a proactive and long-term vision (Chelleri et al., 2015; Wamsler and Lawson, 2011). Barriers identified include constrained resources, political inertia, and inflexible organizational structures of concerned public administrations. To counter these issues, we advocate for enhancing citizen participation and transparent political dialogue to elevate public consciousness regarding SUD concerns. Consequently, it is advised to integrate practices and techniques for strategic foresight that engage citizens and a broader array of stakeholders, specifically tailored to SUD. This approach is recommended to advance proactive and long-term visioning in SUD policy development.

During policy formulation, challenges such as compartmentalized thinking, lack of political motivation, and vague policy objectives impede the development of integrated SUD solutions (Collia and March, 2012; Faehnle et al., 2014; Karppi and Vakkuri, 2020). We propose promoting interactions between public administration bodies and grassroots organizations to enhance leadership and foster cross-sectoral information exchange. An immediate actionable step is to initiate cross-sectoral workshops and innovation labs, bringing together diverse stakeholders to co-create SUD solutions and cultivate a culture of collaboration and integrated thinking while developing policy options to address SUD.

Decision-making is often restricted to formal government roles, encountering resistance from stakeholders and restrictive regulations (Jacquier, 2005; El-Kholei, 2020). To surmount these barriers, it is recommended that public engagement be enhanced and a decentralized governance model implemented.

The implementation phase confronts challenges of organizational and institutional constraints, such as resource shortages and administrative inefficiencies (Domorenok et al., 2021; Mahmudul Haque et al., 2022). Allocating sufficient resources and bolstering inter-departmental coordination are advisable. A practical solution involves establishing inter-departmental task forces focused on SUD initiatives to optimize resource allocation and streamline administrative processes within concerned public sector organizations, thus enabling more effective policy implementation.

The evaluation stage grapples with resource constraints, a lack of evaluation culture, and procedural fragmentation. Mitigation strategies include aligning SUD policies with city governance, promoting decentralization, and fostering collaborative efforts (Bothello and Mehrpouya, 2019; Sheng, 2010; Sminia, 2016). Additionally, creating a public online dashboard to monitor the progress of SUD policies against specific indicators can enhance transparency, accountability, and public oversight, facilitating the identification of areas for adjustment.

By addressing each identified barrier with stage-specific actionable solutions, this study contributes to overcoming obstacles that obstruct the effective development of SUD policies.

Conclusion

This paper has systematically dissected the policy cycle to uncover and address barriers inhibiting the progression of SUD policies within public administration. Through an in-depth examination spanning agenda-setting to evaluation, we have identified specific obstacles at each phase and proposed actionable strategies tailored to surmount these challenges. Our analysis underscores the necessity of enhancing citizen participation, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, implementing decentralized governance models, optimizing resource allocation, and promoting a culture of continuous evaluation. By integrating these strategies, public administrations are better equipped to strategically organize the complexities of SUD policymaking strategically, thus contributing significantly toward the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This strategic roadmap aims to facilitate more effective policymaking throughout the entire policy cycle, from agenda-setting to evaluation, and to set a precedent for future research and policy innovation in the SUD field.

Cross-fertilization between SUD studies and policy process theories can yield insights beyond what the policy cycle model alone can offer. For example, we suggest engaging the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to analyse the role of various stakeholders and coalitions in the urban development policy subsystem. This approach could provide insights into how SUD policies are adopted within urban planning and the resistance they might face from established coalitions at different policy-making moments, from agenda-setting to evaluation. Furthermore, the Punctuated Equilibrium Model can be applied to understand significant policy changes in response to focusing events, explaining rapid shifts in SUD priorities on the governmental agenda. The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework could aid in comprehending the multi-actor governance of shared urban resources and the collective choice arrangements that determine SUD policy outcomes. Similarly, the Multiple Streams Framework can illuminate the alignment of problems, policy solutions, and political conditions that open windows of opportunity for SUD policy advancement. Within the Multiple Streams Framework tradition, research on policy entrepreneurs could also explore how these pivotal actors leverage opportunities to enhance citizen participation, enable cross-sectoral collaboration, and advocate for decentralized governance models in SUD to implement the strategic roadmap that we have outlined in this article. Finally, the Narrative Policy Framework offers a method to examine narratives' powerful role in shaping SUD policy debates and influencing policy outcomes at different stages of the policy cycle. By embracing these diverse theoretical perspectives, researchers and policymakers can uncover novel approaches to navigating the policy process and enhancing the efficacy of SUD policymaking. There is much to learn from the cross-fertilization of SUD policies and policy process theories, and we hope to have made a start with this paper.

To conclude, this paper emphasises the importance of public policy and administration analysis of SUD policies since, as we identified from the literature review, it is still scarce in PA academic publications.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Diego Galego

Appendix

Appendix 1. The frequency of countries and regions is reported in the documents analysed.

Countries	Frequency	%
United Kingdom 9 (England 5; Scotland 3)	17	14.29
Poland	9	7.56
Sweden	7	5.88
The Netherlands	7	5.88
France	6	5.04
Italy	6	5.04
EU	5	4.20
Germany	5	4.20
Switzerland	5	4.20
Czech	4	3.36
Spain	4	3.36
USA	4	3.36
China	4	3.36
South Africa	4	3.36
Belgium	3	2.52
Norway	3	2.52
Denmark	2	1.68
Finland	2	1.68
Hong Kong	2	1.68
Portugal	2	1.68
Bangladesh	2	1.68
Australia; Estonia; Hungary; Slovakia; Slovenia; China/Taiwan; Egypt; El Salvador; India; Iran; Kenya; Mexico; Nigeria; Saudi Arabia; Turkey; Southeast Asia; (one time each)	1	0.84
Total	119	100.00

Appendix 2. Classification of Academic disciplines from identified studies.

Academic discipline	N	%
Geography, planning and development	29	36.71
Urban studies	24	30.38
Development	8	10.13
Sociology and political Science	6	7.59
Public administration	6	7.59
Law	2	2.53
Social Sciences	1	1.27
Management, monitoring, policy and law	1	1.27
Transportation	1	1.27
Political Sciences and international Relations	1	1.27
TOTAL	79	100.00

Source: Disciplines classified according to the ‘SCIMAGO’ categories for each journal identified in this review.

References

Ababio

(2023) Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-system perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Construction Management & Economics 41(1): 3–21. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2022.2135750.

Acampora

Ruini

Mattia

, et al. (2023) Towards carbon neutrality in the agri-food sector: Drivers and barriers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 189: 106755. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106755.

Aerni

(2016) Coping with migration-induced urban growth: addressing the blind spot of UN habitat. Sustainability 8(8): 800. DOI: 10.3390/su8080800.

Aina

Etta

Obi

(1994) The search for sustainable urban development in Metropolitan Lagos, Nigeria: Prospects and problems. Third World Planning Review 16(2): 201–219.

Aina

Wafer

Ahmed

, et al. (2019) Top-down sustainable urban development? Urban governance transformation in Saudi Arabia. Cities 90(July): 272–281. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.003.

Alkhani

(2020) Understanding private-sector engagement in sustainable urban development and delivering the climate agenda in North Western Europe—a case study of London and Copenhagen. Sustainability 12(20): 8431. DOI: 10.3390/su12208431.

Andersen

Skrede

(2017) Planning for a sustainable Oslo: the challenge of turning urban theory into practice. Local Environment 22(5): 581–594. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1236783.

Béal

(2012) Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements: post-democracy in French and British cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 19(4): 404–419. DOI: 10.1177/0969776411428562.

Bogers

Biermann

Kalfagianni

, et al. (2022) Sustainable development goals fail to advance policy integration: a large-n text analysis of 159 international organizations. Environmental Science & Policy 138(December): 134–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.002.

10.

Bothello

Mehrpouya

(2019) Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development. Regulation & Governance 13(2): 177–196. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12215.

11.

Bouckaert

Galego

(forthcoming) System-quake proof ‘systemic resilience governance’: six measures for readiness. Global Policy.

12.

Buyannemekh

Gil-Garcia

Gascó-Hernández

(2023) Exploring emergent collaborations for digital transformation in local governments: the engagement of public libraries in the development of smart cities. Public Policy and Administration 0(0): 1–26. DOI: 10.1177/09520767231197600.

13.

Carpenter

González Medina

Huete García

MÁ

, et al. (2020) Variegated Europeanization and urban policy: dynamics of policy transfer in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. European Urban and Regional Studies 27(3): 227–245. DOI: 10.1177/0969776419898508.

14.

Casiano

Cheryl

deB

(2015) Symbolic implementation: governance Assessment of the water Treatment plant policy in the Puebla’s Alto Atoyac Sub-Basin, Mexico. International Journal Of Water Governance 4(January): 1–24. DOI: 10.7564/14-IJWG79

15.

Cavaco

Florentino

Pagliuso

(2020) Urban policies in Portugal. In: Armondi

Sonia de Gregorio

(ed) Foregrounding Urban Agendas: The New Urban Issue in European Experiences of Policy-Making. Cham: Springer, 49–73. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29073-3_3.

16.

Chelleri

Schuetze

Salvati

(2015) Integrating Resilience with urban sustainability in neglected Neighborhoods: challenges and opportunities of Transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico city. Habitat International 48(August): 122–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.016.

17.

Chin

Mees

HLP

(2021) The rising stars of social innovations: how Do local governments facilitate citizen initiatives to thrive? The case of waste management in Brussels and Hong Kong. Environmental Policy and Governance 31(5): 533–545. DOI: 10.1002/eet.1953.

18.

Cinar

Trott

Simms

(2019) A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review 21(2): 264–290. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477.

19.

Collia

March

(2012) Urban planning regulations for ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in Victoria: beyond building controls. Urban Policy and Research 30(2): 105–126. DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2012.679816.

20.

Dąbrowski

(2015) ‘Doing more with less’ or ‘doing less with less’? Assessing EU cohesion Policy’s financial Instruments for urban development. Regional Studies, Regional Science 2(1): 73–96. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2014.999107.

21.

Davison

Patel

Greyling

(2016) Tackling wicked problems and Tricky transitions: change and Continuity in Cape Town’s environmental policy Landscape. Local Environment 21(9): 1063–1081. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1066321.

22.

Ddiba

Kim

Koop

SHA

, et al. (2020) Governing the circular economy: assessing the capacity to implement resource-oriented sanitation and waste management systems in low- and middle-income countries. Earth System Governance 4(June): 19. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2020.100063.

23.

De Vries

Bekkers

Tummers

(2016) Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration 94(1): 146–166. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12209.

24.

Domorenok

Graziano

Polverari

(2021) Policy integration, policy design and administrative Capacities. Evidence from EU cohesion policy. Policy and Society 40(1): 58–78. DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2021.1930697.

25.

El-Kholei

(2020) Failed planning: Lost opportunities and choices for the future. Open House International 45(4): 387–406. DOI: 10.1108/OHI-07-2020-0075.

26.

El-Sherif

Khalil

(2022) Policy instruments for facilitating smart city governance. In Smart Cities Policies and Financing 5: 305–317. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819130-9.00052-8.

27.

Dunn

(2017) Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach. 6th ed. New York: Routledge, 1–498.

28.

Dye

(1972) Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1–368.

29.

Elander

Gustavsson

(2019) From policy community to issue networks: implementing social sustainability in a Swedish urban development programme. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(6): 1082–1101. DOI: 10.1177/2399654418820077.

30.

Esposito

Nelson

Ferlie

, et al. (2021) The institutional shaping of global megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. International Journal of Project Management 39(6): 658–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.06.001.

31.

Esposito

Terlizzi

Crutzen

(2022) Policy narratives and megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. Public Management Review 24(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1795230.

32.

Evans

(2011) Lost in Translation? the Bristol Accord and the sustainable communities agenda Lost in Translation? the Bristol Accord and the sustainable communities agenda 1 Neil Evans author information. European Journal of Spatial Development 44.

33.

Faehnle

Bäcklund

Tyrväinen

, et al. (2014) How can residents’ Experiences Inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning 130(1): 171–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.012.

34.

Filion

Lee

Leanage

, et al. (2015) Planners’ perspectives on obstacles to sustainable urban development: Implications for transformative planning strategies. Planning Practice and Research 30(2): 202–221. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1023079.

35.

Galera

Rodríguez

López Hernández

(2008) Identifying barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government. Public Management Review 10(2): 241–262. DOI: 10.1080/14719030801928706.

36.

Gallez

Kaufmann

Maksim

, et al. (2013) Coordinating transport and urban planning: from ideologies to local realities. European Planning Studies 21(8): 1235–1255. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722945.

37.

Goebel

(2007) Sustainable urban development? Low-cost housing challenges in South Africa. Habitat International 31(3–4): 291–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.03.001.

38.

Hall

(2007) The future of the Metropolis and its Form. Regional Studies 41(sup1): S137–S146. DOI: 10.1080/00343400701232314.

39.

Harms

Goodwin

(2019) Scoping reviews. Physiotherapy 105(4): 397–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.10.005.

40.

Henry

Paris

(2009) Institutional dynamics and institutional barriers to sustainable construction in France, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. In: Cooper

Symes

(eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 171–196.

41.

Hosseini

Ahmad

Pajoohan

(2016) Assessment of Institutions in sustainable urban-management Effects on sustainable development of Tehran: learning from a developing country. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 142(2): 17. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000301.

42.

Howlett

Ramesh

Perl

(2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. 3rd edition. Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.

43.

Huang

S-L

Wong

J-H

Chen

T-C

(1998) A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning 42(1): 15–27. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00054-1.

44.

Jacquier

(2005) On relationships between integrated policies for sustainable urban development and urban governance. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96(4): 363–376. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00469.x.

45.

Janurova

Chaloupkova

Kunc

(2020) Smart city strategy and its implementation barriers. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management 15(2): 5–21. DOI: 10.2307/26915287.

46.

Jenkins

(1978) Policy analysis: a political and organizational perspective. London: Martin Robertson.

47.

Karppi

Vakkuri

(2020) Becoming smart? Pursuit of sustainability in urban policy design. Public Management Review 22(5): 746–766. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1718188.

48.

Karvonen

(2010) Metronatural^TM: Inventing and Reworking urban nature in Seattle. Progress in Planning 74(4): 153–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2010.07.001.

49.

Kern

Rogge

(2018) Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 102–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001.

50.

Klopp

Petretta

(2017) The urban sustainable development goal: indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities 63(March): 92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019.

51.

Lasswell

(1956) The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Maryland: University of Maryland Press.

52.

Leman

Cox

(1991) Sustainable urban development: strategic considerations for Urbanizing Nations. Ekistics 58(348/349): 216–224. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/43623198

53.

Mahmudul Haque

AKM

Akram Ullah

Sikdar

, et al. (2022) Integrating environmental governance into sustainable urban development in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 17(5): 1471–1478. DOI: 10.18280/ijsdp.170511.

54.

Makieła

Stuss

Mucha-Kuś

, et al. (2022) Smart city 4.0: sustainable urban development in the Metropolis GZM. Sustainability 14(6): 3516. DOI: 10.3390/su14063516.

55.

Medeiros

Van Der Zwet

(2020) Evaluating integrated sustainable urban development strategies: a methodological framework applied in Portugal. European Planning Studies 28(3): 563–582. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1606898.

56.

Mendez

van der Zwet

Borkowska-Waszak

(2021) Rescaling urban development policy in the EU: the impact of integrated place-based approaches in cohesion policy. Regional Studies 55(6): 1154–1165. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.1891215.

57.

Moffat

Chakwizira

Ingwani

, et al. (2021) Policy directions for spatial transformation and sustainable development: a case study of Polokwane city, South Africa. Town and Regional Planning 78: 5. DOI: 10.18820/2415-0495/trp78i1.4.

58.

Moore

Rydin

(2008) Promoting sustainable construction: European and British networks at the knowledge-policy Interface. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10: 233–254. DOI: 10.1080/15239080802242712.

59.

Wang

(2022) A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review 24(4): 489–511. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1838787.

60.

Munn

Peters

MDJ

Stern

, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18(143): 143–147. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

61.

Perry

Atherton

(2017) Beyond critique: the value of co-production in realising just cities? Local Environment 22(November): 36–51. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2017.1297389.

62.

Pesch

Vernay

van Bueren

, et al. (2017) Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: on the role of Individuals in Niche formation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 49(8): 1922–1942. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X17705383.

63.

Peters

(2015) Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society 34(3–4): 219–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.005.

64.

Peters

(2015) Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

65.

Peters

MDJ

Godfrey

Khalil

, et al. (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 13(3): 141–146. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.

66.

Pettigrew

Whipp

(1993) Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

67.

Polverari

Domorenok

Graziano

(2022) Empowerment via delegation? The administrative capacity-building potential of cohesion policy urban development strategies. Regional Studies 58: 733–744. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2022.2058698.

68.

Prové

Dessein

Krom

(2016) Taking context into account in urban agriculture governance: case studies of Warsaw (Poland) and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy 56(November): 16–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.025.

69.

Qian

Wong

(2012) Master planning under urban-rural integration: the case of Nanjing, China. Urban Policy and Research 30(4): 403–421. DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2012.737778.

70.

Ripoll Gonzalez

Gale

(2023) Sustainable city branding narratives: a critical appraisal of processes and outcomes. Journal of Place Management and Development 16(1): 20–44. DOI: 10.1108/JPMD-09-2021-0093. Laura.

71.

Roberts

(2009) Sustainable communities policy, practice and professional development: A model for Europe. In: Cooper

Symes

(eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 127–144.

72.

Romano

(2014) Strategies for sustainable urban development: towards green (Er) Chinese cities? Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration 36(3): 233–247. DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2014.944748.

73.

Rydin

Moore

(2009) Sustainable construction and policy learning in Europe Cascades, networks or fragmentation? In: Cooper

Symes

(eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 27–44.

74.

Scheller

Thörn

(2018) Governing ‘sustainable urban development’ through self-build groups and cohousing: the cases of Hamburg and Gothenburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 42(5): 914–933. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12652.

75.

Seabrooke

Yeung

SCW

FMF

, et al. (2004) Implementing sustainable urban development at the Operational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International 28(3): 443–466. DOI: 10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00043-2.

76.

Shawoo

Maltais

Dzebo

, et al. (2023) Political drivers of policy coherence for sustainable development: An analytical framework. Environmental Policy and Governance 33(4): 339–350. DOI: 10.1002/eet.2039.

77.

Sheng

(2010) Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Environment and Urbanization Asia 1(2): 131–147. DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100203.

78.

Sminia

(2016) Pioneering process research: Andrew Pettigrew’s contribution to management scholarship, 1962-2014. International Journal of Management Reviews 18(2): 111–132. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12063.

79.

Stigt

Driessen

PPJ

Spit

TJM

(2013) A window on urban sustainability. Integration of environmental interests in urban planning through ‘decision windows. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 42(September): 18–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.04.002.

80.

Tchinda

Talbot

(2024) Barriers and enablers of environmental policy coherence: A systematic review. Environmental Policy and Governance 34(1): 77–92. DOI: 10.1002/eet.2057.

81.

Tretter

(2013) Contesting sustainability: ‘SMART growth’ and the Redevelopment of Austin’s Eastside. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1): 297–310. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01166.x.

82.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850.

83.

Turcu

(2012) Local Experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods. Progress in Planning 78(3): 101–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.04.002.

84.

UN-Habitat (2022) World cities report 2022. Envisaging the Future of Cities 1–422. Available at: https://unhabitat.org/world-cities-report-2022-envisaging-the-future-of-cities

85.

United Nations (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1–247. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811

86.

Varol

Ercoskun

Gurer

(2011) Local participatory mechanisms and collective actions for sustainable urban development in Turkey. Habitat International 35(1): 9–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.02.002.

87.

Wamsler

Lawson

(2011) The role of formal and informal Insurance mechanisms for reducing urban disaster risk: a South-North Comparison. Housing Studies 26(2): 197–223. DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2011.542087.

88.

Zwet

Ferry

(2019) Integrated sustainable urban development strategies in the European union: Added value and challenges. In: Medeiros

(ed) Territorial Cohesion: The Urban Dimension. Cham: Springer, 111–129. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-03386-6_6.