4. Cross-Nordic comparison and analysis

Sustainable urban development has become a critical focus for many countries in order to address challenges such as changing commerce trends, mobility patterns and environmental concerns. To discover common patterns and good practices from which others can learn, the results of the five case studies are compared in this section. This comparative analysis examines initiatives in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, shedding light on diverse approaches to sustainable urban development. Each case study provides insights into the effectiveness, challenges and unique features of national support initiatives aimed at fostering sustainable urban development. 

The project was launched under the assumption that Nordic municipalities have a strong need for additional support with respect to sustainable urban development. The results of the case studies indicate that support for sustainable urban development is essential for municipalities and cities. In the fieldwork, the interviewees were also asked about which types of support they considered essential. Although financial support was highlighted as being the most critical one and described by all municipality representatives as fundamental for working on sustainable urban development, other types of support were also brought up. The national support initiatives offer various kinds of support – practical, strategic and inspirational. Figure 4 lists the types of support for sustainable urban development that were mentioned in the case studies.

It was also evident from the case studies, and especially the Icelandic case, that the municipalities have taken on more responsibilities and services from the regional/state level over the years,

In Sweden, for example, municipal responsibility for welfare services has become more comprehensive and complex compared to the 1970s when the Swedish welfare state was still undergoing expansion (see SOU 2020:8).

without the adjustment of funds needed to perform these services. Funds for investments in sustainable urban development come secondary to ensuring provision of basic services when there is a lack of financial resources at the municipal level. Hence, more state funding is needed in general and specifically for targeted initiatives for sustainable urban development projects. In the other cases, challenges regarding the interconnected nature of urban development issues were discussed. Multiple aspects need to be considered simultaneously, including the social, economic and environmental dimensions of urban development. Overall, the cases highlighted the fact that national support is crucial in order for municipalities to address major and multiple challenges in urban development effectively and simultaneously.

Figure 4. Types of support areas for sustainable urban development (note that the support examples on the right may overlap and be included in several of the areas). 

A crucial consideration is the delicate balance between state intervention and municipal self-governance. That raises questions about enabling state or nationwide support without compromising local autonomy. Municipalities emphasise the importance of having a mandate to decide their support needs, ensuring relevance. Several of the national support initiatives are designed so that the municipalities can implement the initiative in a way that suits them. Being able to adapt the initiative to the local context and needs was highlighted as beneficial. However, leeway to influence what kind of support is provided is still lacking to some extent.

Iceland lacks recent national initiatives and a formal framework for regional or local actors to apply for funding at the national level for sustainable urban development. In Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, such forms of state programme or funds exist, with both targeted initiatives and open calls. Yet in the cases where state programmes or funds do exist, there are imbalances as to the recipients of such opportunities and what kind of support is provided. Challenges arise in relation to “who” receives support, with difficulties in applying for project funds and searching for relevant calls. Most support opportunities are based on applications through open calls. That is the case for the chosen initiatives in Denmark and Finland, both of which had open calls to which municipalities could submit applications, whereas municipalities were targeted in the case of Sweden. However, in most cases with open calls, municipalities are required to have enough resources and expertise to make an application. Patterns show that the same municipalities often apply for grants and are successful in their applications; that issue was brought up in the Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian and Danish cases (but not the in the Icelandic case as they do not have the same support system with open calls). Municipalities vary in their ability to navigate and apply for state support, creating an imbalance in support opportunities. Success is not necessarily determined by the size or wealth of the municipality, but rather by expertise and prior experience, with municipalities varying in their ability to mobilise resources and write effective applications.

Furthermore, some municipalities stated that they face challenges in navigating and applying for state support due to dispersed information and varying application processes, as the support opportunities were spread out over many different channels. Other challenges concerned the short time frame for the application process and support initiatives being announced too close to the deadline, as well as the rather complicated application process. That creates an imbalance by which only some municipalities receive direct state support through such national support initiatives. While that imbalance is important to highlight, it should be noted that applications can fulfil a purpose by ensuring that government co-financing is used to support and steer development, with efforts targeted towards where they are most beneficial. The interviewed representatives of state agencies were aware of that imbalance and efforts are being made to reduce it. In Sweden, for example, work is in progress to create one channel (a website) with all information about state support for sustainable urban development and all relevant opportunities. In Finland, efforts have been made to make applications to the Sustainable City programme as easy as possible, thereby enabling more inexperienced cities and municipalities to participate.

The national support initiatives offer valuable lessons and present specific projects, but they vary in terms of how directly they are related to municipal spatial planning. In several of the Nordic countries, the state does not exert direct influence on municipal spatial planning. Instead, the responsibility lies with municipalities. The national support initiatives influence municipalities by providing inspiration for future municipal spatial planning, without directly influencing directives. For example, in Norway, FutureBuilt operates in collaboration with municipalities and external partners, focusing on influencing sustainable development without taking over municipal planning responsibilities. Similarly, Visions: in the North in Sweden also focuses on providing inspiration for municipalities' future work on sustainable urban development. The Sustainable City programme in Finland primarily revolves around encouraging and influencing sustainability in city plans and strategies. However, the pilot projects, which involved testing new practical solutions, allowed for urban planning to be influenced directly, for example in the case of green spaces. The projects launched as part of the Sustainable City programme can act as a starting point for sustainable urban development and lay the foundation for future work and larger urban development plans. Similar reasoning was provided regarding the Danish Partnership for Vibrant City Centres; namely that the results of the initiative served to inspire sustainable urban development in the city plans. It was noted that the initiative could also be built on further, with municipalities drawing on the results in their long-term plans. 

The cases show that several of the national support initiatives can be understood as supportive tools provided by the central state/nationwide stakeholders to influence sustainable urban development at the local level. The initiatives are intended to inspire other municipalities and diffuse the results, so other municipalities can gain indirect support through inspiration. The Icelandic case stands out for its bottom-up lobbying process, linking state funding to a regional infrastructure project. Strengthening links to strategic spatial planning in other cases could enhance the connection between national support initiatives and ordinary municipal planning, although the municipalities expressed the need to still have a mandate on how to implement the results of the initiative in the framework of their spatial planning.

Overall, the various initiatives often have a rather narrow time frame, operating for a few years only. That time frame is often too short to implement actual changes in spatial planning or urban development processes. While the national support initiatives allow for direct lessons and communication channels, risks emerge from constraints on time and actors. That raises questions about how such initiatives can facilitate long-term learning and capacity building among municipalities, irrespective of their organisational structure. However, the main objective of several of the initiatives is for the participating municipalities and cities to receive a range of support, tools and guidance so that they themselves can catalyse sustainable changes. Hence, provision of support, tools and knowledge in the field of sustainable urban development can foster municipalities’ work on such questions at the local level. It takes time to implement changes in spatial planning and urban development, which is why changes in relation to sustainable urban development need a long-term perspective.

However, that is also related to a challenge that was raised in all the case studies, namely the need for longer-term support and commitments in order to implement changes. The challenge is that support for sustainable urban development – i.e. the types, level and design of such support – can change from one government term to the next. In other words, the status of urban policy varies depending on the government in power and so too does support for sustainable urban development in terms of funding, resources and focal areas. Urban development can be a slow process. It needs to pass through several levels of decision-making and be accepted in the local communities before it can be implemented in the urban development plans. Considering the extended timeline of urban planning processes, municipalities need assurance that they have enough support to work on such questions long-term, so long-term commitments are crucial for success. The variability of urban policy from one government term to the next poses challenges for municipalities’ long-term planning. There is therefore a need for long-term, cross-administrative and policy-coherent support for sustainable urban development. 

The various national support initiatives also differ in their design and how they came about. The initiatives vary as to the initiating actor and whether they are bottom-up or top-down. While the national support initiatives chosen in Sweden, Finland and Denmark are top-down initiatives originating at state level, the studied national support initiatives in Norway and Iceland are both bottom-up, originating from actors that are not at state level. The Norwegian FutureBuilt case exemplifies the fact that support initiatives can take diverse forms and may originate from non-state actors, whereas the Icelandic Borgarlína project, which originated from a regional plan approved by seven municipalities, demonstrates the importance of bottom-up approaches in the absence of formal funding structures. FutureBuilt and Borgarlína originated as bottom-up initiatives, demonstrating a shift from traditional top-down approaches in sustainable development programmes. That does not mean that no bottom-up initiatives exist in Sweden, Finland and Denmark or, conversely, that no top-down initiatives exist in Norway (although that is the case in Iceland, which lacks formal state/national support initiatives), but rather exemplifies the many different ways that support can be initiated.

All of the case studies highlight the importance of cooperation between the local (municipal level) and state level. Regardless of the initiative, all the case study interviewees emphasised the benefits of a partnership-based approach, with collaboration between the various stakeholders enhancing inclusivity. The initiatives demonstrate the importance of collaboration between different levels and actors for successful sustainable urban development, fostering collaboration between municipalities/cities, communities, state actors, civil society, academia, private developers and the business sector. Horizontal forms of cooperation, rather than vertical forms, were underlined as beneficial for implementation of the initiatives.

It was also noted that the initiatives, especially those that are partnership-based, improve direct communication between the actors involved, such as municipalities/cities, state agencies and the private sector, thereby enhancing dialogue and creating a channel for expressing views and needs. For example, although FutureBuilt in Norway is not state-initiated, the initiative includes state actors and agencies, together with private actors and municipalities. FutureBuilt creates an arena for sharing insights on what kind of challenges municipalities face regarding sustainable urban development. State actors can take advantage of this arena to better understand the needs of the municipalities and develop and design the support they provide accordingly. 

The studied national support initiatives gave the municipalities a forum to express what kind of support they need and how it should be designed so that they themselves can work on sustainable urban development. The municipalities expressed the need for dialogue and the ability to influence what kind of support they can receive. What was highlighted in the Swedish, Finnish and Danish cases specifically was that influence on the kind of support provided was rather low, but there was greater possibility for influence on how the initiatives themselves could be implemented. The initiatives were designed so that they could be adapted to the local context and needs and the actors in charge could use the initiative and its results and implement them in a way that suited them best. 

The structure and design of the initiative/programme can thus facilitate direct communication. What was also evident from the case studies was that the initiatives could be used as test beds. The collaborative initiatives aimed to test solutions on a small scale, facilitating later diffusion and use by other municipalities. For example, the Swedish Visions: in the North initiative brought about new working methods, including an agile approach, close cooperation, a focus on specific local needs and involvement of municipalities early on, with that design being seen as beneficial. Similar thoughts were expressed in relation to the Finnish Sustainable City programme and the Partnership for Vibrant City Centres in Denmark; the interviewees appreciated introduction of the new organisational structures and methods, with an emphasis on close cooperation, agility, flexibility and multidisciplinary collaboration. The Icelandic Borgarlína project emphasises how important municipal commitments, governance and local enthusiasm are for successful implementation.

This comparative analysis highlights the diverse approaches and challenges faced by Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland in promoting sustainable urban development. Despite variations, common themes underscore the need for long-term commitment, effective collaboration and flexible working models. Lessons learned from each case study contribute to a broader understanding of the intricacies involved in fostering sustainable urban development initiatives. As countries continue to address urbanisation challenges, the exchange of best practices and ongoing adaptation of strategies will play a pivotal role in building resilient and sustainable cities.

Firstly, the importance of various types of support and holistic strategies for sustainable urban development is evident across all countries. Secondly, the national support initiatives can influence local strategic planning and urban development in different ways, both directly and indirectly. The design of the initiatives is important, with collaboration between different levels and actors, the introduction of new working methods and the creation of information platforms being opportunities for enhancing sustainable urban development. The case studies show, however, that there are challenges connected to navigating state support and ensuring equal access to support opportunities, and that challenges connected to changing policy frameworks and securing long-term support commitments persist. Challenges lie in the potential instability of the policy framework due to parliamentary elections, requiring municipalities to navigate a dynamic landscape. There is a call for initiatives with longer time frames and increased financial support for sustained impact. Lastly, several good practices are also showcased, serving as inspiration for the further development of support for sustainable urban development.