Indicator “Governance and sustainable management”

Assessment of the waterfront Polis interventions

in the cities of Cacém and Leiria

Ana Margarida da Silva Evangelista

Extended Abstract

June 2011

1

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

Indicator “Governance and sustainable management”

Assessment of the waterfront Polis interventions in the cities of Cacém and Leiria

Ana Margarida da Silva Evangelista

ABSTRACT

During the last decades, governance and sustainable management of territory became a key

issue in international debates on urban sustainability, especially in the context of waterfront

regeneration projects. The development and the application of indicators to analyse and support

sustainable development have been high on the policy agenda. As such, the RiProCity project

engaged in the conceptual and methodological development of a set of indicators to evaluate the

contribution of the river to urban sustainability. This set includes an indicator dedicated to assess

governance and sustainable management in waterfronts projects (indicator RiProCity no. 8).

This thesis aims to test this indicator, by applying it comparatively to two case studies, as a

basis for any possible adjustments in its formulation. As the other RiProCity indicators, also this

indicator was tested using the interventions recently carried out under Polis programme, by analysing

in this case interventions in Cacém and in Leiria. Generally it can be concluded that this application

has shown success and limitations, of both the RiProCity indicators and the Polis interventions here

analysed.

The application of the indicator to the two case studies demonstrated its sensitivity to the

issues of governance and sustainable management. It also showed that the indicator has the potential

for monitoring the process, and that it presents limitations in the comparison between interventions.

These limitations must account for the context of each case. Nevertheless its application can also

assist local authorities in benchmarking their action and improve management and planning for future

interventions.

Keywords

Sustainable urban development, governance, indicators, decision-making processes, waterfronts.

2

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the nineties it has been recognized that cities are the place where the majority of world’s

population live1, consequently, the place with major pressures on the environmental system, but

simultaneously, the place of opportunity for improvements of urban quality of life (Seixas, 2006).

Throughout history, most of the cities emerged near the water (Kostof, 1992).The conditions of

this natural element (water - sea, river, stream or lake) has impacts on the environment and urban

landscape. In addition, they influence the identity of the city and its relationship with the society. Thus,

by discussing on the theme of urban sustainable development one began to recognize the contribution

that a watercourse can provide to its city in the classical dimensions of sustainable development (SD):

environmental, economic and social (Saraiva et al., 2007 and 2010).

Sustainable management of waterfronts is a complex issue due to its multidisciplinary

character. There are many players and different applicable legal regimes in waterfronts planning,

which often create conflict and/or overlapping interests. This makes waterfront management more

demanding. In fact, since the Earth Summit (1992)2 Agenda 21 began to recognize the need to focus

on the issues of governance, such as, coordination, cooperation and shared responsibility among all

social partners (Central Administration - CA, Local Authority - LA, other public and private entities,

nongovernmental organizations and citizens), by applying integrated and participatory policies (APA,

2007).

Indices and indicators are a regular resource in assessment methodologies and monitoring of

SD (Aalborg Charter, 1994). However, in what concerns the institutional dimension of SD, there are

still limitations (DGA, 2000) that have also been approached and discussed by several entities

(OCDE, 1993, 1998, 2003; Commonwealth of Australia, 1994; US EPA/FSU, 1996; Sustainable

Seattle, 1998; UN, 2001; DGOTDU, 2010).

The management model of the Polis3 aimed to introduce, in the Portuguese context,

innovations linked with the governance principles (Landeiro et al., 2006), which need to be assess,

meaning, if the management of these processes acts in ways that promote these principles (Condessa

et al. , 2009). However, analysis of programs for urban and environmental regeneration, such as Polis,

extends beyond this narrower scope. It still serves the city itself, by measuring the performance of the

intervention, and increase the theoretical and practical knowledge in order to improve interventions

with similar characteristics in the future (EEA, 2001).

The RiProCity4 project formulated a set of specific indicators to guide the assessment of the

contribution of rivers to urban sustainability. In this context Condessa et al. (2009: 2) developed an

1 “80 percent of Europe’s population lives in urban areas” (Aalborg Charter, 1994: I.1), this is, around ten percent

of the European area (Patrício, 2009). 2 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, bet. 3-14 June 1992.

3 "Polis Programme" - Program for the Urban Renewal and Environmental Valorisation of Cities approved with the

Resolution of the Council of Ministers (RCM) n. 26/2000, May 15th

. 4 Research Project "Rivers and Cities, opportunities for urban sustainability" (RiProCity), developed between 2005

and 2009, aimed at studying and analysing what can be the contribution of the river to urban sustainability. This project was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) (reference

3

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

indicator that aims to measure the performance of waterfront interventions towards the "practice of an

effective policy of urban sustainability and governance" - RiProCity indicator n. 8 ("Governance and

sustainable management") (subsequently referred to as Indicator).

Therefore, as the other RiProCity indicators, also this indicator needed to be tested by

measuring the performance of interventions carried out under Polis. In this framework, this thesis

intends to apply this indicator comparatively to two case studies, in order to contribute to its validation

and propose necessary adjustments for future applications of its methodology.

For selecting the most adequate case studies, the suggestions of Professor Francisco Nunes

Correia5 were considered. He proposed the Polis interventions in Cacém and in Leiria, referring to

them as paradigmatic and representative of different approaches in terms of governance. These case

studies had also in its favor that the RiProCity project had already established privileged contacts with

the municipalities of Leiria and Cacém, which became notably valuable in the collection of data.

Therefore, the main objective of this thesis is to attempt to understand if the indicator is sensitive to

governance differences between these two specific cases.

2. POLIS INTERVENTIONS IN CACÉM AND IN LEIRIA

Among the innovations that the management model of Polis introduced in the Portuguese

context, the creation of “Polis Society Administrations” and “regimes of exception”6 outstand, in order:

(1) to better define the relationship between the CA and LA; (2) to ensure the physical implementation

of the projects developed in a reasonable timeframe; and (3) to promote the coherence of the

interventions. The Technical Commissions (CTA) and the Local Commissions (CLA) were established,

respectively, to articulate the various ministries with jurisdiction in each area and to ensure the

involvement of local society key actors (Landeiro et al. 2009).

The key element of the partnership between the CA and the LA is the Strategic Plan (PE),

where aims, limits, intervention program, implementation timetable and financing sources are defined

(Correia, 20107). Based on the respective PE, Urbanization Plan(s) or the Detail Plan(s) (PP) were

drawn up. These contribute to the stability of the Land-Use Management System.

In Portugal, the Polis programme is still associated to pioneering initiatives, in the

communication and monitoring context, as well as in what concerns the financial support structure.

PPCDT/AUR/62210/2004) and coordinated by CESUR-IST (Centre of Urban and Regional System – Technical Superior Institute of Lisbon. 5 Coordinator of both the Working Group that prepared the Polis, and of the Polis program itself, in the first three

years of its implementation. 6 The regimes of exception have been increasingly adopted, by policymakers across the world, to deliver large-

scale urban projects. Regarding the Polis programme, “regime of exception” is broadly defined by Baptista (2009: 1) “as a system of governance established by extraordinary measures that enforce an alternative set of procedural rules and structures to deliver a public program”. 7 Correia, F.N. (2010) “Polis: Lições e Extrapolações”, II Conferências do IGOT – UL: “A Geografia no

Ordenamento do Território, Lisbon (Portugal): Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon (IGOT-UL), on May 18

th.

4

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

Polis aimed to have an exemplary and demonstrative nature of what can be done in urban

renewal integrating environmental valorisation. And so, it assumed the responsibility for 40 urban

regeneration interventions in 39 different cities across the country. Amongst those at least 23 included

waterfronts (Pinto, 2007). All of them unique, providing a great diversity of solutions. This

demonstrates the relevance of water and water management issues in the Portuguese context. In fact,

the two case studies (Cacém and Leiria) (Figure 1) show major differences in terms of geographical

location, socio-economic characteristics, historical background, as well as, previous planning practice.

Figure 1 – Situation of each city in the City-River System in Portugal (Silva et al., 2006) and in the administrative divisions of their respective municipalities (INE, 2002)

Leiria is coming from five centuries of history as a city (1545) and more than half a century of

urban planning experience. On the other hand, Agualva-Cacém has the official status as a city only

since 2001, following its designation as a village in 1985. In this later planning practice started with the

proposal of PP of Cacém Centre (1983).

As Cacém was not the only Polis intervention in the municipality of Sintra (Correia et al, 2000),

this required additional resources from the LA. However, Leiria is also, beyond its municipality head,

the main town of the district (Figure 1). While Cacém is part of Lisbon Metropolitan Area, with

5

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

suburban characteristics (CEAP-PFCC, 2005), Leiria has the coordinating role of High Extremadura

urban system (expressed as its administrative function of district main town and the growth of tertiary

functions). As a result of Cacém’s characteristics, the city of Agualva-Cacém has, since 1981, twice as

much population as the city of Leiria, although the latter has an area four times larger than the first

(INE, 2002).

However, these two cities have certain similarities when their Polis interventions are analysed.

Both of them have linearly structured interventions along the river/stream (Bernardo and Ramos, 2009

cit. in Patrício, 2009) (Figure 2). Therefore the flagship projects are associated to a continuous green

structure and more connections between banks: "linear park" in Cacém and "thematic bridges" in

Leiria.

Figure 2 – Location of the Polis areas interventions in the Urban Circles of their cities and the major rivers Sources: CMS, Costa (2009), INE (2002) and LeiriaPolis (2006)

3. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH OF INDICATOR “GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT”

Indicator proposes a measurement framework for questions relating to the governance and

management processes of physical transformation of waterfronts, based on the Territorial

Management Instruments (IGT) and the legal planning framework in Portugal. Condessa et al. (2009)

propose nine measurement units (parameters) grouped according to three perspectives (Table 1): (1)

strategy, (2) implementation, and (3) institutional articulation. "Strategy" includes the development

dynamics of IGT, intervention projects and studies, goals and compatibilities or conflicts between them

6

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

– what to do, when and how (parameters 1 to 3). "Implementation" involves issues related to time

schedule (preparation and implementation) and financial resources (parameters 4 to 6). The

"institutional articulation" deals with who does what and how the actors are coordinated in the

governance process (parameter 7 to 9).

Table 1 – Overview of Indicator RiProCity n. 8, "Governance and sustainable management"

(adapted from Condessa et al., 2009, and adjusted to the needs of the Indicator operationalization)

Indicator RiProCity n. 8, Governance and sustainable management

Definition Efficiency of (sustainable) management models on the waterfronts.

Aims Assess if the institutional models that have been adopted in the urban regeneration interventions on riverfront areas contribute to its sustainable management.

Keywords Territorial management, decision-making processes, waterfronts management, public-private partnerships, indicators.

Set of parameters

Strategy

1. Stability of the land-use management system

2. Existence of programs, projects and studies for interventions at waterfront

3. Compatibility/conflicts between plans, programs e projects

Implementation /Funding

4. Average preparation time of plans and programs

5. Implementation levels of plans, programs and projects

6. Obtaining external financing for intervention

Institutional

7. Extent of public participation

8. Existence of partnerships on waterfront responsibilities

9. Entities involved in the decision process/management of the riverfront

The application of the Indicator followed the methodology defined in RiProCity project

concerning the formulation of each parameter (Condessa et al., 2008, 2009). This was also

complemented according to the experts contributions during a workshop8 held under the same project.

Nevertheless adaptations had to be made during its application to make it operational. Thus, in its

application, it was obtained a more operating development of the general methodology exposed in the

Indicator Methodology Sheet (Condessa et al., 2008). Following a brief explanation of the

methodology and data sources is provided.

From an initial analysis a list of information/documents of each parameter was drawn up to be

gathered. Most of these documents were possible to obtain through the research and consequent

analysis of information and documents published on the Internet (particularly the sites of their LA,

Commission for Regional Coordination and Development - CCDR and General Directorate for Land-

Use and Urban Development - DGOTDU). What was not available in this way, had to be consulted

and obtained from the respective entities, and also clarified and analysed with the assistance of their

technicians. These have been contacted mainly in matters related to IGT - in study and/or abandoned

- and to Programs, Projects and Studies of intervention on the waterfront.

During this research, the initial list has been continually updated as new information emerged.

This process has been repeated until all the required data were obtained. Some information was

object of research in the media.

8 In the final stage of the RiProCity project, a workshop (February 2009) was organised. There, the formulation of

each indicator and the results of its application to specialists in various areas were shown. The aim was to get their contribution for the improvement in the implementation and validation of the indicators.

7

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

After a detailed identification and analysis of each of the plans, programs and projects,

specially of their goals and strategies, it was possible to draw conclusions about the compatibility

and/or conflicts between these instruments.

Examining the average preparation time of plans and programs, their phasing and the

changes of policy and legislation guidelines, it was possible to question the causes that led to several

delays in relation to what was defined in PE. This topic was completed with the analysis of

administrative processes for preparing plans, in DGOTDU.

In addition to goals, strategies and average preparation time, it was also necessary to gather

complete information regarding: (1) financing assistance and financiers; (2) actors, particularly related

to property possession; (3) registered participation in the procedures of public participation, provided

by the law and others (civil society sectors in which they are inserted and type of assistance given); (4)

co-responsible entities for the management interventions; and (5) entities involved in decision-making.

With this, it was intended to identify the type of entity or individual involved and interested, and even

try to understand which influence was exerted on the final proposal, as well as, in the preparation and

implementation timings.

The information/documents regarding to the execution are not under the responsibility of the

LA, but of the management company: CacémPolis9 and LeiriaPolis

10. Both companies concluded their

work and have been closed down. Concerning data on the financial execution, in case of Leiria it was

provided by the municipality; and in the case of Cacém it was obtained from of the company that

carried out the global management of CacémPolis, the Parque Expo.

4. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS OF APPLYING THE INDICATOR

By applying the Indicator to the two case studies, information about the options and outcomes

under the three perspectives studied could be summed up. With this application, it was also possible

to demonstrate the sensitivity of Indicator, both concerning the differences in terms of governance and

sustainable management and to the differences of context (Table 2).

Starting from the perspective “strategy", in both cities the waterfront is a constant presence in

their intentions. Therefore, it can be concluded that waterfront has encouraged the planning, so much

that the PPs (parameter 1) not included in the waterfront were mostly abandoned and all the effective

PPs still running are acting on the waterfront. Also related to programs, projects and studies

(parameter 2), it was observed that complementary financial programs (even though with different

objectives) allowed to complete and complement interventions that supported the urban qualification

of the cities. The city of Leiria has showed interest in integrating academic studies in their planning

activity. In both cities, the Polis enabled the execution of equipment, infrastructure and green spaces

9 CacémPolis, Society for the Development of the Polis Programme in Cacém, S. A. (CacémPolis), established by

the Decree Law (DL) n. 43/2001, February 9th.

10 LeiriaPolis, Society for the Development of the Polis Programme in Leiria, S. A. (LeiriaPolis), established by the

DL n. 308/2000, November 28th.

8

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

that had already been laid down by Municipal Master Plan (PDM), showing the conformity between

plans and programs (parameter 3).

Table 2 – Overview on a compared application of the Indicator in the cities of Cacém and Leiria

Cacém Leiria

1

PP Polis has already been approved and recently reviewed.

Interested in plan and review the IGT (especially on the waterfront and its surroundings).

PDM will only be reviewed after more than 10 years.

Three PP Polis are still under development (underway preparation for nearly 10 years).

2

Two financial programs with different objectives acted, allowing complete and complement interventions that will qualify the cities.

Four financial programs with different objectives acted, allowing complete and complement interventions that will qualify the cities.

Polis priority (Polis actions) is given to projects on the property of the LA (66%).

Academic studies about the city exists and the LA corresponded by continuing, even incorporating them.

Lack of public documents providing detailed information in the context of the indicator, particularly about the actions.

Polis priority (Polis actions) is given to projects on the property of the LA (75%).

Society Administration is more dependent upon other public entities than private.

Society administration depends on 32% from private entities, against 4% of dependence upon other public entities.

3 Polis enabled the execution of equipment, infrastructure

and green spaces laid down by the PDM. Polis enabled the execution of equipment, infrastructure

and green spaces laid down by PDM.

4

With the shortest preparation time of approved PP (two and four years).

With the shortest preparation time of approved PDM (seven years).

The PP Polis was approved before the analysed period of great changes.

Not very realistic deadlines in the preparation timetable of PP.

Need of a panoply of compulsory purchases for demolition.

With the longer preparation time of approved PP (five and six years).

With the longer preparation time of approved PDM (15 years).

PP Polis susceptible to the changes of policy and legislation guidelines.

5

Only 16% of the action are to be finished, suspended or abandoned.

PE LeiriaPolis encompassed goals that synthesise their most important actions, and to which were given priority, so that values obtained on implementation are exceeding 90%.

PE CacémPolis encompassed goals that showed to be unfeasible or were suspended, which is reflected in its implementation levels.

51% of the action are to be finished, suspended or abandoned.

6

Seizes the opportunities of intervening, capturing the most external funding.

More prudent in spending, reducing them by the delay or abandonment of the actions not subsidized or less subsidized.

CA participated in the increase of spending the same ratio as LA.

Rates of external funding slightly more favourable in the Polis and PALOR.

Increased the initial expense of PRUA and Polis.

PALOR reaches 64,3% of financing from Community funds.

Part of the affected owners moved out of the city, increasing the vacant dwellings.

CA was the only major shareholder who has strengthened the social capital.

Most of the suspended actions with dependency on private entities are associated with the construction industry, which is in “crisis” - undermines the self-financing rooted in the alienation of land.

Most of the suspended actions with dependency on private entities are associated with the construction industry, which is in “crisis” - undermines the self-financing rooted in the alienation of land.

7

Lack of communication with the population properly based on credible studies.

Lack of communication with the population properly based on credible studies.

Population tends more to complain than to suggest.

Population tends more to complain than to suggest.

8 Much fewer co-responsible entities for implementation

than by conception. Most interest on co-responsibility for the intervention,

equity in implementation and conception.

9 PP Polis did not depend by counsel related to different

sectors. PP Polis needed counsel from entities related to 3 or 4

different sectors.

Legend:

Positive or favourable to the intervention

Neutral, can be either favourable or unfavourable

Negative or adverse to the intervention

9

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

Concerning parameter 1, it was observed in Leiria a more dynamic development of IGT (at all

levels and in the case of PP, covering a larger area), even with delays or abandonments. While

Cacém has already approved and recently reviewed its PP Polis, in Leiria, three of the four PP Polis

are still under development.

Turning to the perspective "implementation", dependence and contribution of external factors

identified by the perspective "institutional articulation” could be observed. Both the multidisciplinary

character required for such interventions and the implementation of participatory processes allow to

reach more innovative, effective, grounded, legitimate and sustainable solutions (Costa and Seixas,

2010; Portas et al. 2007; Seixas, 2006; Vasconcelos et al., 2009). However, it can also contribute to

slow down the process. The disadvantages, as stated by Vasconcelos et al. (2009: 51) regarding the

application of participated process in Leiria (parameter 7), were related to the need for clarification and

justification of the solutions. This process should have been "adequately substantiated by credible

studies", which absence hinders the dialogue and the reaching of consensus.

It was also observed that the approved PP Polis with shorter time of preparation were those

where there was the requirement of expropriations and demolitions. But, three PP Polis in Leiria are

still under development. These delay is associated with the process of integrating public participation

at the same time as in Portugal emerged a period of consecutive changes of policy and legislation

guidelines. Additionally, only Leiria was required to observe coordination of several different sectors

(parameter 9).

In the material implementation (parameter 5), strategically, there seems to be some relation

between the priority actions (Polis actions and “associates”) and the possession of property by the LA.

In fact, it presented a lower implementation level where it was not the only responsible.

In the financial context (parameter 6), the LAs have been persistent in moving forward with

interventions on its waterfronts taking advantage of existing programmes. The LA of Cacém tried to

seize the opportunity of intervening, getting the most of external funding, even assuming the risk of

delays in receiving it. On the other hand, Leiria’s position in the national urban system allows the

appearance of more opportunities. In this context, it is possible to be more prudent in spending,

accepting the delay or abandonment of actions that are not or less subsidized.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

The Indicator proved useful since may allow to analyse and support the LA in management of

its territory under the principles of governance, specially in waterfront interventions. Its utility was

confirmed applying the Indicator to the two case studies, where it was able to synthesize information

to confirm its potential for monitoring the process. Nevertheless, the comparison between

interventions in the two cities presents still limitations. Regarding this comparison, it must be taken

10

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

account the context of each case, as well as, the complexity of the issues involved. Another limitation

is the overall lack of knowledge on what is effectively sustainable.

Its utility is even validated by analysing the Indicator under the criteria of selection and

validation defined and enforced by several entities (OCDE, 1993, 1998, 2003; Commonwealth of

Australia, 1994; US EPA/FSU, 1996; Sustainable Seattle, 1998; UN, 2001; DGOTDU, 2010) (Table 3).

Almost all the parameters proved potential to be useful in future applications. Those with greater

fragility are both parameter 3, regarding its limited statistical measurability, and parameter 8, due to

the need for a more solid theoretical basis about what is more sustainable. All the others needed only

further developments of the normalization forms, in order to use in comparing interventions.

Table 3 - Validation of the indicator based on the referred selection criteria

Criteria Validation and Remarks

Relevant for measuring the progress about the system

Integrating many perspectives of governance and sustainable management.

Easy to interpret and elicit reactions Profusion of parameters and diversity of registration forms may eventually delay the full understanding of the outcome.

Attractive to local media It includes issues with great interest and public visibility.

Statistical measurability to compare different times and different places

More suitable for monitoring over time than for comparing different spatial contexts.

Information and methodology are logically or scientifically well grounded

Validation by the experts panel related to the research project.

Reliability in the measurement and tendency observed

It allows identifying trends.

Warning while it is still time to act When applied to monitoring allows to highlight non conformity with the targets, alerting for corrective actions.

Relevance for policy decisions for all stakeholders in the system

Particularly useful to guide Public Administration.

Information available at a reasonable cost/benefit ratio and from existing institutional and technical conditions

It requires previous organization of regular data collection.

Sensitivity to distinguish meaningful differences of local and time contexts

It identifies meaningful differences of context.

Easy regular monitoring

Some parameters could be integrated into regular monitoring system of the LA, while others are mainly intended to the monitoring of specific interventions.

Facility to involve community, where and when possible and appropriate

It can support the LA in the proposal of initiatives for community involvement.

Contribution to the fulfilment of international agreements

Although the methodology is not designed for this specific purpose, it serves the main issues debated at international Fora, with which Portugal has commitments.

Legend

Good / High relevance

Average / With some relevance

In general, the utility of its application is associated with several issues: (1) encouragement to

the planning and integration at various levels of land-use management system; (2) strict definition of

timing and financing; (3) identification of the difficulties which the LA is faced in the implementation;

and (4) recognition of importance and implications from participation, shared responsibility and

involvement of various actors. As such, the Indicator scheme, with the changes made in this thesis,

may constitute itself as a suggestion to set up a monitoring system of future interventions. The

11

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

success of this system requires the systematic collection of information for decision support in

management and planning, eventually useful to the Observatory of Land-Use and Urbanism (OOTU).

It was also considered that the Indicator may come to assist the LA to improve planning and

management of future interventions, easing somehow the ex ante assessment. In this prospective

approach, it could also assist in the continuous measurement (on going), prompting to action where

and when necessary. The assessment of "institutional articulation" provides insights about the interest

of different stakeholders in response to the various options taken by the LA.

However, the Indicator also presents some limitations. There remain issues to be addressed in

future applications, which were not possible to address in this dissertation mainly due to unavailability

or lack of information and time constraints.

The parameters 2 and 5 still require the gathering of more accurate information. By identifying

more accurately the intervention area, investments and timing of each action it would be given more

reliability to results. Parameter 3 rises the same issues, notably those during and follow up the

concertation, allowing for better founded solutions.

In the scope of this Indicator it would also be important to analyse the relation between the

municipality and the population in every phase of preparation and implementation, including

dissemination, briefing sessions and the communication during the interventions.

Parameter 8 should not be limited to the mere existence of partnerships. But it should also

include the real value ("value for money" of the project) in order to be able to better assess the

sustainability of the intervention. However, on the issue of partnerships it is not yet possible to draw

conclusions about the ideal situation (more or fewer co-accountable entities), and it is a subject in that

need to be further analysis. Therefore, it is essential to develop studies on the partnerships, mainly

concerning the most adequate models to assess the success or the damage to the Public

Administration.

It is also recommended to progress on the simplification of the representation of the Indicator

(for example, in a performance profile) and to create a set of benchmarks. It is considered that the

benchmarks are comprised by a synthesis of the ideal situation (model sheet) for each parameter, with

specific times to be achieved for each step and target.

Bearing in mind that some of the Indicator’s limitations is related to the lack of information and

precise definition of objectives and targets for the interventions, the adoption of the Indicator by the LA

at the beginning of their interventions may enable the structuring of data collection in such a way that it

can assist them in managing the process and evaluating the performance. Ultimately, it may contribute

to a greater transparency of the process promoting the effective involvement of the population, as a

key component of “good” governance.

12

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

REFERENCES

APA (2007) Sistema de Indicadores de Desenvolvimento Sustentável – SIDS PORTUGAL, Amadora

(Portugal): Portuguese Environment Agency (APA). <URL:

http://www.apambiente.pt/Instrumentos/sids/Documents/SIDS%202007/SIDS%20Portugal.pdf>.

Baptista, I. (2009) Regimes of Exception in Urban Planning and Governance: The Case of the POLIS

Program, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, <URL:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1897497691&Fmt=14&VType=PQD&VInst=PROD&RQT=309&V

Name=PQD&TS=1266865342&clientId=79356>.

CEAP-PFCC (2005) Plano Verde do Concelho de Sintra, Lisbon (Portugal): Instituto Superior de

Agronomia, Technical University of Lisbon (ISA/UTL); Research Centre for Landscape Architecture

“Professor Caldeira Cabral”, ISA (CEAP-PFCC).

Commonwealth of Australia (1994) State of the Environment Reporting: Framework for Australia,

Canberra (Australia): Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, <URL:

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/publications/framework.html>.

Condessa, B.; Sá, A.; Trigueiros, T. (2008) Ficha Metodológica: Indicador n.º 8 – Governância e

Gestão Sustentável, RiProCity Project, Lisbon (Portugal): Centre of Urban and Regional System –

Technical Superior Institute of Lisbon (CESUR-IST).

Condessa, B.; Sá, A.; Trigueiros, T. (2009) “Algumas Considerações sobre Governância e Gestão

Sustentável, Metodologia para formulação do indicador RiProCity nº 8”, Rios e Cidades:

Oportunidades para a Sustentabilidade Urbana, Workshop e Conferência Final, Lisbon (Portugal), 16

February 2009, <URL: http://www.civil.ist.utl.pt/Web-RiProCiTy/files/IND8_Workshop_16_02_09.pdf>.

Correia, F.N.; Cruz, J. Martins; R. Liberato; P. Morbey, L. (2000) “Relatório do Grupo de Trabalho que

propõe e estrutura o Programa” in Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning, Portugal (MAOT)

(ed.) Programa POLIS – Documento para apresentação pública, Lisbon (Portugal): Parque Expo 98,

pp. 17-107, <URL: http://www.polis.maotdr.gov.pt/Docs_pdf/relat_grupo_trabalho_pdf.pdf>.

Costa, R.V. (2009) Intervenção do Programa Polis em Agualva-Cacém, Lisbon (Portugal): Technical

Superior Institute of Lisbon (IST), 25 May 2009.

Costa, P.; Seixas, J. (2010) “Criatividade e Governança Urbana: Alguns ensinamentos e princípios de

orientação estratégica para o caso lisboeta”, Criatividade, Competitividade e Vitalidade Urbana: uma

cultura de governança para a cidade criativa, Proceedings of the International Conference, Lisbon

(Portugal): Higher Institute of Labour and Enterprise, Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL), 7

December 2010, <URL: http://creatcity.dinamia.iscte.pt/images/CREATCITY2010/wp6_pc_js.pdf>.

13

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

DGA (2000) Proposta para um Sistema de Indicadores de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (SIDS),

Amadora (Portugal): Direcção de Serviços de Informação e Acreditação, Direcção-Geral do Ambiente

(DGA) (Institute for the Environment), <URL:

http://www.apambiente.pt/Instrumentos/sids/Documents/SIDS%202000/sids_pdf_2000.pdf>.

DGOTDU (2010) Sistema Nacional de Indicadores e Dados-base sobre o Ordenamento do Território

e Desenvolvimento Urbano – Análise exploratória de sistemas de indicadores como instrumentos na

avaliação de políticas públicas, Lisbon (Portugal): DGOTDU, <URL:

http://www.dgotdu.pt/filedownload.aspx?schema=ec7b8803-b0f2-4404-b003-

8fb407da00ca&channel=C4193EB3-3FA7-4C98-B8CA-D6B9F5602448&content_id=C9AC6204-

D377-462D-8BAF-194DC5FCD000&field=file_src&lang=pt&ver=1>.

EEA (2001) “Environmental benchmarking for local authorities: From concept to practice”,

Environmental issues report, No 20/2001, January 2001, Copenhagen (Denmark): European

Environmental Agency, <URL:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/Environmental_issues_No_20/envissues20>.

INE (2002) Atlas das Cidades de Portugal, Lisbon (Portugal): Statistics Portugal.

Kostof, S. (1992) The City Assembled: The Elements of Urban Form Through History, London:

Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Landeiro, C.; Sá, A.M.; Trigueiros, T. (2006) “Increasing integration in cities by tweaking institutional

arrangements”, Cities between Integration and Disintegration, 42nd

ISoCaRP Congress, Istanbul

(Turkey), 14-18 September 2006.

Landeiro, C.; Gonçalves, J.; Silva, J. B.; Soares, R.; Cambra, P. (2009) “Participação pública e

monitorização de Planos e Projectos” in CESUR Manual – Métodos e Técnicas para o

Desenvolvimento Urbano Sustentável – A Experiência dos Projectos POLIS, Colecção EXPOentes,

vol. 8, Lisbon (Portugal): Parque EXPO 98, cap. 4, pp. 136-172.

LeiriaPolis (2006) Leiria Urbana – Um Território, Uma Estratégia, ND, 28 March.

OCDE (1993) “OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews”, Environment

Monographs 83, Synthesis report by the Group on the State of the Environment (mimeo), Paris

(France): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), <URL:

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=OCDE/GD(93)179&docLangu

age=En>.

OCDE (1998) Towards Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators (consulted version: Rumo

a um desenvolvimento sustentável – indicadores ambientais, Salvador, Brasil: Série Cadernos de

Referência Ambiental, v.9, 2002, <URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/45/2345364.pdf>).

14

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

OCDE (2003) OECD Environmental Indicators – Development, measurement and use – Reference

Paper, Paris (France): OCDE, <URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/47/24993546.pdf>.

Patrício, M.J. (2009) Avaliação do Programa POLIS em Leiria através da Satisfação dos Agentes

Locais, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Lisbon, Technical Superior Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon

(Portugal), <URL: https://dspace.ist.utl.pt/bitstream/2295/329835/1/Relatorio.pdf>.

Pinto, P.L.J. (2007) A Cidade Fluvial em Portugal – Contributos para a Integração de Cidade e Rio,

Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Lisbon, Technical Superior Institute of Lisbon, Lisbon (Portugal).

Portas, N.; Domingues, A.; Cabral, J. (Ed.) (2007) Políticas urbanas, tendências, estratégias e

oportunidades, Lisbon (Portugal): Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (FCG).

Saraiva, M.G.; Ramos, I.L.; Bernardo, F.; Vaz, L.; Teixeira, T. (2007) “Intervenções em Áreas

Ribeirinhas: Que critérios? Análise das dimensões ecológicas e psico-sociais. Casos de estudo em

estruturas verdes ribeirinhas.”, VII Congresso Ibérico de Urbanismo - “Paisagem, Frentes de Água e

Território - Aprender com os casos de sucesso,” 11-13 October 2007, Ponta Delgada (Portugal).

Saraiva, M.G.; Condessa, B.; Ramos, I.L. (2010) “Rios e Cidades, Indicadores para a

Sustentabilidade Urbana” in Saraiva, M.G. (Coord.) Cidades e Rios, Perspectivas para uma relação

sustentável, Colecção EXPOentes, vol. 9, Lisbon (Portugal): Parque EXPO 98, cap. 8, pp. 158-193.

Seixas, J. (2006) “A Reinvenção da Política na Cidade - Perspectivas para a Governação Urbana” in

Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios, n.º 12/13, pp. 179-198, <URL: http://www.ics.ul.pt/rdonweb-

docs/João%20Seixas%20-%20Publicações%202006,%20nº2.pdf>.

Silva, J.B.; Pinto, P.; Serdoura, F. (2006) “Urban Rivers as Factors of Urban (Dis)integration”, Cities

between Integration and Disintegration, 42nd

ISoCaRP Congress, Istanbul (Turkey), 14-18 September

2006, <URL: http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/789.pdf>.

Sustainable Seattle (1998) Indicators of Sustainable Community, Washington (USA): Sustainable

Seattle, <URL: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/30/33732840.pdf>.

UN (2001) Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Second Edition, UN

Publication Sales No. E.01.II.A.6, September, New York (USA): United Nations, <URL:

http://www.uneca.org/eca_programmes/sdd/events/Rio20/WorkshopSDIndicator/SustainableDevelop

mentIndicators.pdf>.

US EPA/FSU (1996) State Indicators of National Scope. Environmental Indicator Technical Assistance

Series: Volume Three, State Environmental Goals and Indicators Project: A Cooperative Agreement

Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the Florida Center for Public

Management of Florida State University, Tallahassee: FCPM-FSU, <URL:

http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/segip/catalog/vol3/sins_rpt.zip>.

15

Ind

ica

tor

“Go

ve

rna

nce

an

d s

usta

ina

ble

ma

nag

em

en

t”

Assessm

en

t o

f th

e w

ate

rfro

nt P

olis

in

terv

en

tio

ns in

th

e c

itie

s o

f C

acé

m a

nd

Le

iria

Vasconcelos, L.; Oliveira, R.; Caser, U. (2009) Governância e participação na gestão territorial, Série

Política de Cidades – 5, Polis XXI, Lisbon (Portugal): DGOTDU, <URL:

http://www.dgotdu.pt/filedownload.aspx?schema=ec7b8803-b0f2-4404-b003-

8fb407da00ca&channel=86AD646C-08B0-4F63-83B9-7A41EB67DD89&content_id=F0638772-9B2E-

4A71-BE48-3403C570D709&field=file_src&lang=pt&ver=1>