
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, 

<http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf>.



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



