JPI Urban Europe is interested in research to better understand and influence how various forms of expert and lay knowledge may be mobilised in novel forms of urban governance and in the design, realisation and management of urban services, spaces or systems. Of particular interest is how governance processes and devices address both short and long term issues facing urban societies and governments. The need for a more collaborative governance Global and European trends, climate change in particular, suggest that cities and urban areas face risk and uncertainty. Urban climate change adaptation, mitigation and resilience building has become more and more foregrounded in both academic and policy debates as well as urban planning consultancy. Urban governance, planning, and management functions may in the future be more concerned with resilience and adaptation to extremes rather than with modern planning’s central concern for operational efficiency under predictable conditions. What does this entail for governance, and for urban research, technology development, and innovation in and for governance, including transdisciplinary research and experiments with urban stakeholders? But there is a more general justification for more participatory and co-creative forms of urban governance as we transition towards more sustainable and liveable urban futures. Conflict and friction in complex policy problem solving are a common dilemma in urban governance and planning. So-called ‘wicked problems’, where a solution to X gives rise to problems in Y, are probably as old as urban life itself. However, due to the increasingly dense and complex networks of relations in urban areas, the potential for adverse unintended consequences of actions and for associated tensions in urban societies is aggravated – to the point that many city authorities may experience a severely limited room for manoeuvre in day-to-day urban management. The interrelated nature of wicked problems requires collaborative approaches to governance, as solutions otherwise run the great risk of being ‘stuck in their silos’. But there is currently a lack of representation in urban decision making, with segments of society having no voice: the need for representative and democratic urban governance calls for social innovation, participatory approaches, and deliberate co-creation of urban knowledge and policy. This co-creation should in principle involve citizens and public and private collective actors as well as urban experts of all sorts (scholars, consultants...); because the issues at stake, including highly technical ones, overflow traditional disciplinary boundaries. Governance, it is argued, has thus to start to deliver on its promises of a more networked lateral decision-making rather than vertical regulation. However, in the social sciences, the role of citizens and lay knowledge, and how it combines with expert knowledge and vested (political, financial...) interests, in decision- making concerning high-risk objects with uncertain effects has been a key interest for quite some time. Here, governance is observed to have invited public participation to enhance transparency, accountability and thus democratic legitimacy in the policy sphere to restore or establish public trust in political institutions and decision-makers – a strategy which many times reduces public participatory events to an end in themselves. While the notion of governance may have been introduced in urban planning and management to increase democracy and inclusive decision-making, many observers caution that it may have had counter-productive effects, in that strategies and action lines concerning major urban public and private investments are shaped in informal institutions that evade public scrutiny and democratic accountability. The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe Hence, networked lateral decision-making should not succumb to opaque and informal settings out of democratic reach. This means, for instance, that innovation-driven transitions to improved resource efficiency and public participatory and other open deliberative political explorations may need to go hand in hand. Participatory devices The development of ICT infrastructures both supports, and provides convenient tools for, more distributed or horizontal forms of urban management and more participatory forms of governance. For instance, the spread of open urban data and the possibilities provided by crowdsourcing and open innovation may facilitate new forms of governance in the quest for more effective solutions to demands for public space, affordable housing, the management of urban sprawl or the provision of more sustainable urban infrastructure and systems. ICT is also an increasingly integral part of political infrastructures for urban democracy (including material and technological aspects), enabling new forms of knowledge and issues to be publicised, deliberated and shaped in ever new ways (e.g. GIS and PPGIS). These aspects of urban governance, policy formulation and planning warrant a more systemic approach to urban complexity, paying attention to interdependencies within and between the sociotechnical assemblages that constitute the contemporary urban. In addition, increased attention to ‘real time’ urban issues, in particular response to crises, has arguably combined with ubiquitous ICT to challenge and transform traditional forms of urban governance and of management of urban services and spaces; enabling the emergence of bottom-up responses. But these phenomena are ill understood, as is the potential to positively direct emergent responses; calling for more sociotechnical approaches to urban governance that account for complex real-time dynamics of more decentralised governance and management systems. MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS -- What do climate change and other major changes in urban areas entail for governance, and for urban research, technological development and innovation in and for governance, including transdisciplinary research and experiments with urban stakeholders? --Which participatory urban planning and design approaches best facilitate the achievement of more just and sustainable distributions of public and private resources and amenities in urban areas? -- Where are the genuine knowledge gaps to understand how urban socio-technical and political systems interact with each other and with the urban landscape of buildings, open space and green areas? Urban governance and participation thus require research, technological development, and innovation concerning: ROADMAP URBAN GOVERNANCE & PARTICIPATION MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS -- How to establish co-creative processes in highly technicised and/or complex areas of urban governance; taking into account the (very) long term (e.g. preparedness for major risks) and the (very) short term (e.g. responding to extreme and possibly catastrophic events). -- How ubiquitous use of ICTs to generate urban data and to support (novel forms of) urban agency affect how cities are practiced and governed. -- How to enhance the capacity (skills, competence, etc.) for urban governance, planning, and management to absorb, translate, and implement participatory and collaborative approaches (integrated governance, integrated research, technological development and innovation) as well as other urban issues, in particular those identified in the other thematic priority areas of the JPI Urban Europe SRIA? PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE and inclusive communities supporting urban growth and shrinkage GOVERNANCE, CO-CREATION AND PARTICIPATORY DEVICES for climate change adaption SOCIO-TECHNICAL DYNAMICS of participatory devices and its role for urban accessiblility PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE for urban transition pathways The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe -9- THE JPI URBAN EUROPE MULTI-ANNUAL CALL AGENDA Based on the SRIA and its defined priorities and research topics a multi-annual call agenda has been developed to fund and manage the SRIA. This call agenda, which builds on two previous pilot calls as well as an ERA-NET Cofund on Smart Cities and Communities, covers the timeframe 2016–2020. The multi-annual call agenda takes an integrated view on urban development with the ambition to foster cross-fertilisation of the thematic priorities but at the same time to have clearly defined and focused call topics. Based on the call agenda the specification of call topics will be defined considering already achieved results from earlier calls, latest scientific developments, external cooperation opportunities and newly identified research needs; including those of JPI Urban Europe’s partners and funding agencies; who will assess their priorities and opportunities to join and support each call in turn. To fully tap the potential of the call agenda, a programme management is needed to connect the thematic priorities, make use of results for future calls, to develop the research community through dedicated events and to facilitate a multi-stakeholder involvement and exchange. In addition funding schemes or frameworks will be developed to exploit the potential for alignment between national calls and those of JPI Urban Europe. These accompanying measures will be addressed in the SRIA implementation plan. The call agenda also provides a basis to assess and negotiate joint actions and cooperation with other funding programmes and initiatives, such as other JPIs, Horizon 2020, the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, and activities under the EU Cohesion Policy such as Urban Innovation Actions or URBACT. Regular exchange with those actors and initiatives should ensure a high effectivity of investments and cooperation whenever possible. CALL AGENDA OBJECTIVES FOCUS AREA 2015 ERANET Smart Urban Futures Investigating transition towards new models of urban development reinforcing European cities as hubs of innovation, co-creation and centers of job creation • Establishment of urban innovation ecosystems with particular regard to new dynamics of public services and inclusive and vibrant urban communities • Investigating concepts and strategies for urban transformation considering different urban scales in growth and shrinkage scenarios 2016 Urban Nexus Develop and support new strategies, knowledge platforms based on the food-energy-water nexus to accelerate transitions to urban sustainable consumption and production, develop goals, targets, and policy solutions for sustainable urbanisation including equity issues and local-to-global/cross scale dynamics Integrated approach for defining and rating urban sustainability within the realms of: • Financial instruments • Governance and social innovation for ecosystem services • Agglomeration dynamics :green urban economies / circular economies to foster sustainable production and consumption patterns for driving social cohesion • Resilient urban systems’ engineering • Resilient mobility systems 2017 Urban Accessibility and Governance Paving the way towards sustainable transition by developing tools and strategies to enhance the accessibility of infrastructure, services and urban amenities considering sustainable mobility sytems, inclusive welfare, people’s needs and the dynamics of cross-city/district cooperation • Targets and tools for transition pathways: - New public-private cooperation models - Tools and adaptive governance for climate change and big events • Investigating accessibility and connectivity - Considering the dynamics of polycentric cities - Urban connectivity and its economic benefit - Role of participatory devices - integrated mobility systems 2018 Quality of urban Life Improvement of the quality of life through social innovation, new matrix for sustainable city performance, decarbonising urban areas and tapping on the potential of migration • characterising sustainable urban performance • social innovation for improving the quality of life, fostering decarbonisation and reducing the societal impact • potential of migration for urban economic and welfare development • increasing the quality of life by connecting neighbourhoods 2019 Urban Transitions Designing integrated strategies and pathways considering new financing schemes for resilient infrastructure, participatory governance and economic transition. • Experimentation and living labs for for detailed transition strategies for economic and economic transition • Identification of challenges to be overcome for full-scale transition 2020 Sustainable Urban Areas Integrated urban modelling and decision making frameworks to accelerate sustainable urban development on various scales • policy interventions • scaleable models (from small to big, from local to regional, from short to long term) The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe -10- SRIA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The implementation of the multi-annual call agenda does not only demand the development and realisation of joint calls but goes along various measures to meet the high ambition of the SRIA. Figure 5 summarises the Action Lines that have been defined to support the full and effective implementation of the strategy. JOINT CALLS The development and execution of joint calls is an essential measure for a targeted implementation of the SRIA. The two pilot calls (2012, 2013) as well as the first ERA-NET Cofund – EN Smart Cities & Communities – have provided useful experiences in designing the framework conditions for a demand-oriented, trans- and inter-disciplinary programme. With an increasing number of funding agencies teaming up in these joint calls, dedicated research questions can be promoted to a wider European audience; addressing the diversity of Europe’s cities and enabling the best possible European talent to be brought to bear in tackling their challenges. Accordingly, JPI Urban Europe aims to connect and cooperate with other initiatives to strengthen research, technological development and innovation in Europe to the highest degree. In particular ERA-NET Cofunds provide the opportunity to benefit from bringing together European and national programmes. In line with the defined call themes, options for ERA-NETs under different Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges will be assessed. PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT Programme management is key to realize JPI Urban Europe’s ambition. Fundamental to JPI Urban Europe is its long-term, mission- and demand-oriented programme, stimulating interdisciplinary research, focussed on the defined priorities, and being transdisciplinary in its activities. STRATEGIC DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIPS NEW INSTRUMENTS & FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS JOINT CALLS ALIGNMENT ACTIONS PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT VALORISATION, DISSEMINATION & COMMUNICATION EVALUATION Figure 5 Implementation plan structured along seven action lines The success of JPI Urban Europe’s strategic research, technological development and innovation agenda will require careful program management, to ensure the cross fertilisation of research results and methods amongst and between the different projects and calls; ensuring that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This success also implies that research teams, companies, cities and other urban stakeholders involved in the different activities collectively contribute to the overall goal of JPI Urban Europe. In order to realise this ambition the goal of programme management can be defined as stimulating a community of research and practice around the common challenges faced by European cities and urban areas. Such a community requires the presence of formal and informal networks between researchers and urban stakeholders, structural opportunities to exchange knowledge and experiences and instruments that stimulate a milieu where both researchers and stakeholders are actively involved in the implementation and dissemination of research outcomes beyond the scope of individual projects. Table 1 summarises the target groups that need to be addressed by program management through different instruments and means. Table 1: Target groups and potential instruments for program management TARGET GROUPS AMBITION POTENTIAL INSTRUMENTS Scientific and research community Platform for experience exchange to build projects upon each other, to ensure uptake of latest insights and achievements in future projects; to bring together experts from various disciplines and sectors Workshops, conferences, summer schools, exchange programmes Cities Validation and promotion of new concepts and results, strengthen involvement in research and innovation projects Definition of new requirements for and implementation of new technologies establishing strong city partnerships along project clusters Workshops, local events, living labs Business & entrepreneurship Supporting uptake of results into business solutions, developing new technologies and infrastructure solutions; enhancing involvement of companies and consideration of business needs in the projects Workshops, invited talks Science – practice cooperation Ensuring a regular exchange of concepts and achievements and to develop innovative projects ideas, foster uptake of latest scientific and technological results, enhance understanding of practical needs for research and technological development Sandpits or hackathons, JPI Urban Europe Award, road shows, annual conference, local events Funding Agencies Project monitoring, reflection and improvement of instruments and framework conditions Workshops, analysis, funding schemes The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe NEW INSTRUMENTS AND FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS To achieve the defined objectives and deliver concrete benefits for and with our cities the funding schemes and framework conditions need to be critically reflected and – if needed – new instruments established. One particular instrument that is already envisaged as an important measure to ensure multi-stakeholder engagement, a close researcher-city-civil society collaboration and the establishment of a comprehensive and long-term urban database are urban observatories and living labs. Set up in strategic located cities urban observatories will support the acquisition and management of detailed datasets to deepen our insights in to the functioning of cities; support the calibration and validation of urban decision support tools. Urban Living Labs will be strategically used for testing and validating research results, involving relevant urban stakeholders; to prepare for full scale implementation of new solutions. At the same time the strong cooperation of research with urban stakeholders needs appropriate funding schemes and conditions. Since current funding schemes are very much based on a linear innovation model the existing framework conditions need to be adapted to strengthen the involvement of urban actors in all phases of the research, technological development and innovation cycle. This might result in new evaluation criteria or improved funding rules to overcome current barriers for transnational as well as inter- and transdisciplinary research and cooperation. ALIGNMENT ACTIONS To tap the full potential of national alignment a set of measures is planned that covers the alignment of national programmes, institutions, research infrastructure up to programmes for expert exchange or PhD-students. Based on the established cooperation procedures additional bi- and multi-national calls are envisaged, opening up national programmes for international cooperation and aligning these programme strategies and priorities with the SRIA. One particular measure addresses research institutions since substantial national resources are allocated directly to those organisations that can decide on their strategic research priorities and activities. Building upon and aligning these resources and competences with topics of common strategic importance will strengthen the overall capacity of the European Research Area (ERA). 2013 saw the launch of the Urban Europe Research Alliance (UERA); allowing member organisations to contribute to the SRIA development and jointly defining procedures and targets. It is expected that the UERA will support community building, foster transnational exchange of knowledge and people and amplify the implementation of the SRIA. In JPI Urban Europe’s alignment strategy, additional measures are suggested to foster transnational exchange such as joint PhD programmes or the exchange of experts on all levels, might that be researchers, staff of funding agencies or cities. Experiences have shown that such exchanges can be a powerful mechanism for mutually beneficial collaboration. STRATEGIC DIALOGUE AND RELATIONSHIPS The SRIA has been developed in a comprehensive process of co-creation which will be continued as it evolves throughout the implementation phase. The regular reflection of urban needs and scientific achievements as well as the involvement of new partners and countries will drive the further process and result in the update of the roadmaps and the call agenda. As one measure to support this, JPI Urban Europe intends to extend its Advisory Board; complementing the existing Scientific Advisory Board by setting up a new Urban Stakeholder Board, to better reflect the interests of cities, society and business. On the other hand it is essential to broaden the national network and reach out to new countries and cities, in particular to Eastern and Southern European countries. This will bring new insights, new partnerships and funding opportunities. The increasing network of JPI Urban Europe partners will be developed and supported through dedicated measures on national and transnational levels. Since it is part of the strategy to liaise with the European Commission and contribute in their actions, JPI Urban Europe has given a commitment for the European Innovation Partnership Smart Cities and Communities. It will therefore be assessed how to best integrate the JPI Urban Europe measures and actions into the EIP SCC roadmap and team up with the other EIP partners to accelerate the validation and implementation of smart city concepts. EVALUATION JPI Urban Europe has defined an ambitious programme and selected a series of implementation measures for its implementation phase 2016-2020. Since new instruments and approaches are to be developed complementing well established procedures a regular monitoring and evaluation of its impact and achievements is required to continuously improve the methods, instruments and actions. VALORISATION, DISSEMINATION AND COMMUNICATION Efficient information sharing through website and newsletters, knowledge sharing among partners, coordinated outreach activities and jointly organised events with European institutions and various city stakeholders being at the core of the business. The ambition is to spread the message of the SRIA to national funding agencies, research institutions, cities, European institutions and other relevant stakeholders and to support the long-term ambitions of the JPI Urban Europe to grow and recruit new members. JPI Urban Europe will make continuous efforts to learn from partners and experiment with techniques, methods and channels for knowledge dissemination and valorisation in order to identify and develop effective, cost efficient and dynamic ways to synthesize knowledge and communicate with targeted groups. Instruments and measures dedicated to facilitate new and improved connections between the scientific, policy and practice communities will be employed and developed in cooperation with program management, including measures to facilitate match-making between researchers and potential partners and to exploit the results from research, technological development and innovation activities and leverage potential policy impact. The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe -11- IMPACT Support inclusive, sustainable and green growth through urban innovation: JPI Urban Europe aims at contributing to the European Agenda and the Europe 2020 Strategy29 by facilitating urban social and technological innovation and contributing to the establishment of competitive, inclusive and innovative urban areas. In this context, urban development provides great potential for innovation and the commercialisation of new services, systems, or products. To manage and realise urban innovation the engagement and contribution of companies is indispensable, as is alignment with the smart cities initiatives. With our holistic approach JPI Urban Europe seeks to ensure that urban areas’ social and economic needs are consistently addressed in its research, technological development and innovation activities; ensuring the relevance and continuity of results through an improved understanding of societal needs, business opportunities, new technologies required to optimise urban infrastructures, and the policy measures needed to maintain socially and economically vibrant and inclusive environments, whilst maximizing their resilience and sustainability; to provide environments that attract talent and investment, so enhancing European competitiveness. Improve quality of urban life: In addition to helping to sustain socially and economically inclusive environments, we wish to enhance Europe’s position as the home to many of the world’s most liveable cities; to work towards the improvement of quality of life for all. Through joint efforts to reduce the environmental impact of urban activities and its infrastructure on the one hand through scientific evidence, new methodologies, and new technologies, and to improve socioeconomic conditions on the other, we aim to support the achievement and maintenance of places where all people can engage, where societal and cultural life prospers and urban services, affordable housing and jobs are accessible for all. Raise the scale and ambition of research in the urban domain: Although there are many links to urban research in Horizon 2020, there is no urban challenge defined so far. JPI Urban Europe emphasises the importance of comprehensive urban research, technological development and innovation and provides an integrated framework for future activities. This framework also serves to align and reduce fragmentation in research funding, to deliver an ambitious and integrated programme of research destined to support Europe’s cities in setting and achieving ambitious yet realisable transition targets; to improve their social, economic and environmental performance. Related to international activities, JPI Urban Europe has the ambition to increase the international visibility and scientific excellence of European urban research, technological development and innovation, and to enhance the impact of these activities far 29 EC, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels, 3 March 2010, . beyond Europe’s boundaries. In particular we aim to: --Increase societal relevance: The inter- and transdisciplinary approach will enhance and consolidate current urban research. Supporting evidence based policy measures and decision making is at the heart of this initiative, to ensure the applicability and utility of the developed knowledge. -- Ensure long-term continuity: Urban development has to be addressed in a comprehensive way and with a long-term perspective. Limitations of short-term programmes and activities need to be overcome by a long-term commitment and appropriate framework conditions. JPI Urban Europe aims at providing such a framework for international cooperation, establishing long-term partnerships and accompanying implementation measures. -- Strengthen Europe’s global position: JPI Urban Europe will be used to increase the visibility of Europe’s urban research, technological development and innovation actors on the international stage. Promotion of scientific expertise and knowledge will not only strengthen Europe’s scientific profile but will also result in economic benefits to European products and services. Sustainable partnerships between academia and business as well as with cities and civil societal organisations will be supported to ensure the best possible knowledge transfer. --Demonstrate and showcase European solutions for global urban challenges: Solutions which address the challenge of urbanisation will be based on a new understanding of the urban system, but take on board technological innovation, in a co-creative effort of stakeholders across the board. The solidity of those solutions will give European industry the competitive edge when it comes to selling European technologies and services in the global market. The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe GLOSSARY Agglomeration Economies Agglomeration economies arise when firms cluster (agglomerate) spatially, as this reduces the cost of production and stimulates innovation. This is an important cause of the formation and growth of cities (urban agglomerations). Firms share the advantage of having multiple suppliers, of access to amenities and of a larger home market of labourers and consumers (urbanisation advantages). Larger markets also allow for more specialisation, as the chances of successful matches between supply and demand increase (localisation advantages). Proximity and local variety also facilitate knowledge spill-over, enabling learning processes that trigger innovation. Big data A large collection of structured and/or unstructured datasets that is difficult to process using traditional tools, due to the volume and complexity of the underlying data. Innovative processing and visualisation techniques are increasingly being developed and applied to provide powerful insights and decision making support. City A large built-up area with a name, defined boundaries, and local government. Co-creation An approach where heterogeneous actors collaborate to produce knowledge, instruments, technology, artefacts, policy, know-how, etc. Complex systems (complexity) Systems, such as cities, whose macroscopic properties (social, economic, physical…) emerge from the microscopic behaviours and interactions of their component parts; properties that are dynamic and may be sensitively dependent to microscopic changes. Decision making framework Decision making frameworks may be conceptual in nature to structure comprehensive discourse and analysis. They may also be quantitative, representing key phenomena within a mathematical model with which to test improvements to system functioning. Often the former will inform the latter. In either case, their purpose is to provide a basis for better informed (evidence-based) decision making. Energy-Food-Water Nexus Implies that the three sectors — energy security, water security and food security — are inextricably linked and that actions in one area more often than not have impacts in one or both of the others. As global population grows, increasing demands for basic services and the desire for higher living standards, the need for more conscious stewardship of these interrelated resources to achieve those services and desires becomes more urgent. Technology will play a decisive role in enabling a shift to renewable resources, and in optimising the efficiency of their use. Externality Externalities can be positive or negative. Positive externalities are benefits while negative externalities are costs produced by the behaviour of an agent (individual, household, enterprise, etc.), that influences the result of another agent. The effect (advantage or disadvantage) does not create changes in the price system. Negative externalities produce market inefficiency and are also called social or external costs. Innovation A process in which new ideas (technologies, designs, procedures, etc.), and combinations of them, bring about changes in (sub)systems like supply chains, markets, urban regions, etc. This process can be incremental, radical or even disruptive. Interdisciplinarity A collaboration spanning multiple academic disciplines (e.g. natural sciences, social sciences, engineering sciences, technological sciences, medical sciences) and involving the application of complementary methodologies to more innovatively and comprehensively tackle a common problem than would otherwise be possible. Quality of life Refers to the general well-being of individuals and societies. Standard indicators of quality of life include the quality of the built and natural environment, housing, physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, and social belonging; less tangible appreciations of quality of life include feeling good, happiness, and being satisfied with what life offers. Quality of life should not be confused with the concept of standard of living, which is based primarily on economic indicators, such as income, wealth and employment. Resilience Describes the adaptive capacity of a complex system such as a city; a system’s ability to redirect, absorb, recover from and even to evolve in response to internal or external forces of change; whether these be social, economic or environmental in nature; slow, medium, fast or immediate in rate. Smart city Refers to cities in which ICT is increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous. Cities whose knowledge economy and governance is being progressively driven by innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship; and in which digital technologies can be used to efficiently and effectively run cities and the services provided by them. The integration of technologies needed to manage the Energy-Food-Water Nexus offers the potential to optimise the efficiency and effectiveness of the resources involved. Social innovation Any innovation, whether involving an artefact, process, strategy or practice, that aims to tackle societal challenges such as quality of life; particularly where current institutions, whether public or private, cannot satisfactorily address these challenges in isolation. Sustainability A multifaceted property that describes the extent to which social, economic and environmental objectives are in balance; that economic activity is not declining, that non-renewable resource throughputs are minimised and that society has high capital and is cohesive, equitable and inclusive. Transdisciplinarity A collaboration spanning multiple partners, both academic and non academic, to solve a common problem. Non academic partners may include city officials, (non-) governmental agencies and offices, charitable organisations, firms, civil society, grassroots movements etc. The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe Transition A process by which a system, such as a city, transits from one state to some other future state. This state may be characterised by social, economic or environmental performance factors, or measures, or (preferably) some combination of them. Together with new forms of governance, the process may involve educational, regulatory or financial stimuli, the actions of peers or (socio-) technological innovations; or some combination of them. Transport system The set of components supporting the mobility of goods and people in space and time. This system comprises the infrastructure, the vehicle, the rules of traffic management and the driver or user, interacting together dynamically. New technologies can dramatically increase the efficiency of the system. Urban areas From a morphological perspective: an area encompassing one or more cities plus its built-up environs, irrespective of local body administrative boundaries, often subject to a minimum built-up density threshold and a minimum population size (e.g. clusters of contiguous grid cells of at least 300 inhabitants per km2 and a minimum population of 5 000)30. From a functional perspective: a continuous area including one or several urban centre(s) and all population settlements in which a significant proportion of the employed population works in the urban centre(s) or in localities connected to the urban centre(s). Urban living lab A forum for innovation, applied to the development of new products, systems, services, and processes in an urban area; employing working methods to integrate people into the entire development process as users and co-creators to explore, examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas, scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and creative solutions in complex and everyday contexts. Urban observatory A facility to observe and record the dynamic evolution of an urban area such as a city or a part of a city and its functioning. This may involve the recording of artefacts with slow rates of change, such as land uses and networked infrastructure; medium rates of change, such as buildings and building uses; fast rates of change, such as population and employment: household and firm composition; and immediate, such as flows of finance, energy, goods and materials, people and information. Urban observatories may also record qualitative observations, such as human perceptions. The purpose of an urban observatory may be to record and analyse the evolution of an urban area, or to calibrate and validate a decision making framework, or both. 30 Regional Working Paper 2014 (WP 01/2014): A harmonized definition of cities and rural areas: the new degree of urbanization, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy The Landscape of transnational, urban-related research collaboration in Europe JPI Urban Europe aims to coordinate research and make better use of Europe’s public funds in order to address common European urban challenges more effectively. Strengthening and aligning urban research, technological development and innovation means at the same time to build upon existing expertise, networks and results. In the frame of the European Research Frameworks FP5, FP6 and FP7 substantial funding has already been provided to foster urban-related research on transnational level, supporting research, technological development and innovation in various urban fields and disciplines and generating networks among scientists, industry and public authorities. A solid understanding of the gained achievements allows to position JPI Urban Europe against this background. Utilising the EUPRO database a systematic analysis of thematic clusters and transnational collaboration patterns between countries, regions and actor groups was performed to draw conclusions regarding future requirements and opportunities for a new transnational research, technological development and innovation programme31. Nearly 600 projects related to urban research were funded from FP5 to FP7; most of which were conducted collaboratively. The urban research community has grown from 31 B. Heller-Schuh, M. Barber, T. Scherngell: Urban Research in the European Framework Programmes, Final Report, April 2015 APPENDIX Rural-Urban relationship Urban governance Urban tansport Security Socio-economic development Urban planning Energy Urban infrastructure Urban environment Urban climate Urban sustainablility Figure 6 Network of urban research projects in FP5. ICT-systems & services Urban demography Urban health The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe a rather small, but strongly connected community, to a larger, more loosely connected one. Figure 6 and figure 7 show the network of research projects for FP5 and FP7 respectively. The size of a node represents the number of directly connected projects (degree). The grey scale of the connections (line values) indicates the relative number of jointly participating organizations in two projects. The position of the nodes depends on the number of organizations collaborating in these projects. Projects are positioned next to each other, if many organizations jointly participate in these projects. The colour of the nodes denotes the research topic, which were assigned manually to the project according to their thematic orientation. In total, 1.5 billion Euros were invested in projects dealing with urban research from FP5 to FP7 (Figure 8). Since in FP6 a number of large-scale Integrated Projects were funded the number of projects dropped after FP5, but the amount of project funding increased from 273 million Euros to 430 million Euros. Half of the projects were conducted in the areas of urban transport, energy and urban environment receiving two third of the total project funding. The structural characteristics of the network of urban research project changes from F5 to FP7. While very strong collaboration clusters have emerged for some topics, such as urban transport, ICT-systems & services, energy or security; other topics like urban governance or urban sustainability are more fragmented. The latter have been also pushed from a more central position in FP5 towards the periphery of the network of FP7 projects. The change of collaboration patterns, both in number of projects and Security Rural-Urban relationship Urban tansport Urban governance Socio-economic development Urban planning Energy Urban infrastructure Urban environment Urban climate Urban sustainablility Figure 7 Network of urban research projects in FP7. ICT-systems & services Urban demography Urban health intensity of collaboration, is also observable from analysis of the geographical collaboration pattern. Figure 9 gives the comparison of the collaboration pattern for the clusters energy and urban governance, highlighting different development trends over the last 15 years. In general the transnational collaboration can be described by a core-periphery structure. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, and Italy define the core structure of European collaboration on urban issues. Other countries are more weakly interacting although some countries show a strong contribution in particular areas. Such specialisation was identified, e.g. for Swedish actors in the energy cluster, Norwegian partners in urban climate or Spanish organisations in socio-economic development. Understanding this pattern allows to build upon national strengths on the one hand and consolidate and provide the European expertise to overcome (national) gaps on the other hand. Figure 8 Number (above) and received funding (below) of FP5-7 funded projects thematically clustered The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda of JPI Urban Europe FP7 FP6 FP5 CLUSTER ENERGY CLUSTER URBAN GOVERNANCE Figure 9 Comparison of the geographical collaboration pattern from FP5 to FP7 for the thematic cluster Urban Governance and Energy; the size of the nodes gives the relative number of projects with actors from the respective country, the grey scale of the connections indicates the relative number of collaboration of actors from the countries. Figure 10 Participation of actor groups in urban research projects in FP5-FP7 per cluster Since JPI Urban Europe supports transdisciplinary research and a multi-stakeholder involvement the collaboration pattern of different actor groups was investigated in the FP projects as well. Figure 10 summarises the share of actor groups participating in the projects which varies widely for the different clusters. In general there is a rather low involvement of non-commercial (societal) actors and in some cases of cities which should be addressed for future programmes. In any case the collaboration pattern clearly calls for specific framework conditions to ensure and support collaboration between research and cities, societal actors and/or industry, depending on the particular thematic area. Regarding the development of the research, technological development and innovation programme of JPI Urban Europe a number of key conclusions and ambitions can be drawn from this analysis. In particular, JPI Urban Europe should strive to: JPI URBAN EUROPE SHOULD STRIVE TO -- Complement the existing profile of European urban research by linking the different clusters and strengthening the community on urban sustainability and related fields, through interdisciplinary research. JPI Urban Europe should consolidate what has become a fragmented community or project landscape, re-strengthening research efforts in these important areas. -- Build upon the achieved results and expertise; connecting them more closely with national activities. -- Benefit from transnational collaboration by building upon the competences of a strong core community as well as on the specializations and national strengths of smaller European countries. -- Develop framework conditions that facilitate multi-actor engagement and a balanced and early involvement of cities and urban stakeholders in research projects to ensure high impact and a mutual benefit from transdisciplinary research. GLOBAL URBAN CHALLENGES – JOINT EUROPEAN SOLUTIONS