Sustainable urban development (SUD) gained prominence after the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), countering imbalanced growth that was impacting society, the economy, and the environment. Research on SUD is rapidly expanding among scholars and practitioners, analysing theoretical and empirical aspects. However, SUD encounters multiple barriers in public policies and administration. This study examines academic literature to identify trends in barriers hindering effective policy development based on policy cycles. Through analysis of 90 records, 183 fragments express barriers to SUD, categorized into five types: organisational, interaction-specific, SUD characteristics, contextual and policy-related. The article offers insights to enhance SUD policies and overcome the identifying barriers.
AbabioBKLuW (2023) Barriers and enablers of circular economy in construction: a multi-system perspective towards the development of a practical framework. Construction Management & Economics41(1): 3–21. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2022.2135750.
2.
AcamporaARuiniLMattiaG, et al. (2023) Towards carbon neutrality in the agri-food sector: Drivers and barriers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling189: 106755. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106755.
3.
AerniP (2016) Coping with migration-induced urban growth: addressing the blind spot of UN habitat. Sustainability8(8): 800. DOI: 10.3390/su8080800.
4.
AinaTAEttaFEObiCI (1994) The search for sustainable urban development in Metropolitan Lagos, Nigeria: Prospects and problems. Third World Planning Review16(2): 201–219.
5.
AinaYAWaferAAhmedF, et al. (2019) Top-down sustainable urban development? Urban governance transformation in Saudi Arabia. Cities90(July): 272–281. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.003.
6.
AlkhaniR (2020) Understanding private-sector engagement in sustainable urban development and delivering the climate agenda in North Western Europe—a case study of London and Copenhagen. Sustainability12(20): 8431. DOI: 10.3390/su12208431.
7.
AndersenBSkredeJ (2017) Planning for a sustainable Oslo: the challenge of turning urban theory into practice. Local Environment22(5): 581–594. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2016.1236783.
8.
BéalV (2012) Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements: post-democracy in French and British cities. European Urban and Regional Studies19(4): 404–419. DOI: 10.1177/0969776411428562.
9.
BogersMBiermannFKalfagianniA, et al. (2022) Sustainable development goals fail to advance policy integration: a large-n text analysis of 159 international organizations. Environmental Science & Policy138(December): 134–145. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.002.
10.
BothelloJMehrpouyaA (2019) Between regulatory field structuring and organizational roles: Intermediation in the field of sustainable urban development. Regulation & Governance13(2): 177–196. DOI: 10.1111/rego.12215.
11.
BouckaertGGalegoD (forthcoming) System-quake proof ‘systemic resilience governance’: six measures for readiness. Global Policy.
12.
BuyannemekhBGil-GarciaJRGascó-HernándezM (2023) Exploring emergent collaborations for digital transformation in local governments: the engagement of public libraries in the development of smart cities. Public Policy and Administration0(0): 1–26. DOI: 10.1177/09520767231197600.
13.
CarpenterJGonzález MedinaMHuete GarcíaMÁ, et al. (2020) Variegated Europeanization and urban policy: dynamics of policy transfer in France, Italy, Spain and the UK. European Urban and Regional Studies27(3): 227–245. DOI: 10.1177/0969776419898508.
14.
CasianoFCheryldeB (2015) Symbolic implementation: governance Assessment of the water Treatment plant policy in the Puebla’s Alto Atoyac Sub-Basin, Mexico. International Journal Of Water Governance4(January): 1–24. DOI: 10.7564/14-IJWG79
15.
CavacoCFlorentinoRPagliusoA (2020) Urban policies in Portugal. In: ArmondiSSonia de GregorioH (ed) Foregrounding Urban Agendas: The New Urban Issue in European Experiences of Policy-Making. Cham: Springer, 49–73. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-29073-3_3.
16.
ChelleriLSchuetzeTSalvatiL (2015) Integrating Resilience with urban sustainability in neglected Neighborhoods: challenges and opportunities of Transitioning to decentralized water management in Mexico city. Habitat International48(August): 122–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.016.
17.
ChinWYMeesHLP (2021) The rising stars of social innovations: how Do local governments facilitate citizen initiatives to thrive? The case of waste management in Brussels and Hong Kong. Environmental Policy and Governance31(5): 533–545. DOI: 10.1002/eet.1953.
18.
CinarETrottPSimmsC (2019) A systematic review of barriers to public sector innovation process. Public Management Review21(2): 264–290. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1473477.
19.
ColliaCMarchA (2012) Urban planning regulations for ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in Victoria: beyond building controls. Urban Policy and Research30(2): 105–126. DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2012.679816.
20.
DąbrowskiM (2015) ‘Doing more with less’ or ‘doing less with less’? Assessing EU cohesion Policy’s financial Instruments for urban development. Regional Studies, Regional Science2(1): 73–96. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2014.999107.
21.
DavisonAPatelZGreylingS (2016) Tackling wicked problems and Tricky transitions: change and Continuity in Cape Town’s environmental policy Landscape. Local Environment21(9): 1063–1081. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1066321.
22.
DdibaDKimAKoopSHA, et al. (2020) Governing the circular economy: assessing the capacity to implement resource-oriented sanitation and waste management systems in low- and middle-income countries. Earth System Governance4(June): 19. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2020.100063.
23.
De VriesHBekkersVTummersL (2016) Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration94(1): 146–166. DOI: 10.1111/padm.12209.
24.
DomorenokEGrazianoPPolverariL (2021) Policy integration, policy design and administrative Capacities. Evidence from EU cohesion policy. Policy and Society40(1): 58–78. DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2021.1930697.
25.
El-KholeiAO (2020) Failed planning: Lost opportunities and choices for the future. Open House International45(4): 387–406. DOI: 10.1108/OHI-07-2020-0075.
26.
El-SherifDMKhalilEE (2022) Policy instruments for facilitating smart city governance. In Smart Cities Policies and Financing5: 305–317. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819130-9.00052-8.
27.
DunnW (2017) Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach. 6th ed. New York: Routledge, 1–498.
28.
DyeT (1972) Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1–368.
29.
ElanderIGustavssonE (2019) From policy community to issue networks: implementing social sustainability in a Swedish urban development programme. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space37(6): 1082–1101. DOI: 10.1177/2399654418820077.
30.
EspositoGNelsonTFerlieE, et al. (2021) The institutional shaping of global megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. International Journal of Project Management39(6): 658–671. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.06.001.
31.
EspositoGTerlizziACrutzenN (2022) Policy narratives and megaprojects: the case of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway. Public Management Review24(1): 55–79. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1795230.
32.
EvansN (2011) Lost in Translation? the Bristol Accord and the sustainable communities agenda Lost in Translation? the Bristol Accord and the sustainable communities agenda 1 Neil Evans author information. European Journal of Spatial Development44.
33.
FaehnleMBäcklundPTyrväinenL, et al. (2014) How can residents’ Experiences Inform planning of urban green infrastructure? Case Finland. Landscape and Urban Planning130(1): 171–183. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.012.
34.
FilionPLeeMLeanageN, et al. (2015) Planners’ perspectives on obstacles to sustainable urban development: Implications for transformative planning strategies. Planning Practice and Research30(2): 202–221. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1023079.
35.
GaleraANRodríguezDOLópez HernándezAM (2008) Identifying barriers to the application of standardized performance indicators in local government. Public Management Review10(2): 241–262. DOI: 10.1080/14719030801928706.
36.
GallezCKaufmannVMaksimH, et al. (2013) Coordinating transport and urban planning: from ideologies to local realities. European Planning Studies21(8): 1235–1255. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722945.
37.
GoebelA (2007) Sustainable urban development? Low-cost housing challenges in South Africa. Habitat International31(3–4): 291–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2007.03.001.
38.
HallP (2007) The future of the Metropolis and its Form. Regional Studies41(sup1): S137–S146. DOI: 10.1080/00343400701232314.
HenryEParisM (2009) Institutional dynamics and institutional barriers to sustainable construction in France, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands. In: CooperISymesM (eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 171–196.
41.
HosseiniAAhmadPPajoohanM (2016) Assessment of Institutions in sustainable urban-management Effects on sustainable development of Tehran: learning from a developing country. Journal of Urban Planning and Development142(2): 17. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000301.
42.
HowlettMRameshMPerlA (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles & Policy Subsystems. 3rd edition. Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
43.
HuangS-LWongJ-HChenT-C (1998) A framework of indicator system for measuring Taipei’s urban sustainability. Landscape and Urban Planning42(1): 15–27. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00054-1.
44.
JacquierC (2005) On relationships between integrated policies for sustainable urban development and urban governance. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie96(4): 363–376. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2005.00469.x.
45.
JanurovaMChaloupkovaMKuncJ (2020) Smart city strategy and its implementation barriers. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management15(2): 5–21. DOI: 10.2307/26915287.
46.
JenkinsW (1978) Policy analysis: a political and organizational perspective. London: Martin Robertson.
47.
KarppiIVakkuriJ (2020) Becoming smart? Pursuit of sustainability in urban policy design. Public Management Review22(5): 746–766. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1718188.
48.
KarvonenA (2010) MetronaturalTM: Inventing and Reworking urban nature in Seattle. Progress in Planning74(4): 153–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2010.07.001.
49.
KernFRoggeKS (2018) Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions27: 102–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001.
50.
KloppJMPetrettaDL (2017) The urban sustainable development goal: indicators, complexity and the politics of measuring cities. Cities63(March): 92–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.12.019.
51.
LasswellH (1956) The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Maryland: University of Maryland Press.
Mahmudul HaqueAKMAkram UllahSMSikdarMM, et al. (2022) Integrating environmental governance into sustainable urban development in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning17(5): 1471–1478. DOI: 10.18280/ijsdp.170511.
54.
MakiełaZJStussMMMucha-KuśK, et al. (2022) Smart city 4.0: sustainable urban development in the Metropolis GZM. Sustainability14(6): 3516. DOI: 10.3390/su14063516.
55.
MedeirosEVan Der ZwetA (2020) Evaluating integrated sustainable urban development strategies: a methodological framework applied in Portugal. European Planning Studies28(3): 563–582. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1606898.
56.
MendezCvan der ZwetABorkowska-WaszakS (2021) Rescaling urban development policy in the EU: the impact of integrated place-based approaches in cohesion policy. Regional Studies55(6): 1154–1165. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.1891215.
57.
MoffatFChakwiziraJIngwaniE, et al. (2021) Policy directions for spatial transformation and sustainable development: a case study of Polokwane city, South Africa. Town and Regional Planning78: 5. DOI: 10.18820/2415-0495/trp78i1.4.
58.
MooreSRydinY (2008) Promoting sustainable construction: European and British networks at the knowledge-policy Interface. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning10: 233–254. DOI: 10.1080/15239080802242712.
59.
MuRWangH (2022) A systematic literature review of open innovation in the public sector: Comparing barriers and governance strategies of digital and non-digital open innovation. Public Management Review24(4): 489–511. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1838787.
60.
MunnZPetersMDJSternC, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology18(143): 143–147. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.
61.
PerryBAthertonM (2017) Beyond critique: the value of co-production in realising just cities?Local Environment22(November): 36–51. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2017.1297389.
62.
PeschUVernayALvan BuerenE, et al. (2017) Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: on the role of Individuals in Niche formation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(8): 1922–1942. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X17705383.
63.
PetersBG (2015) Policy capacity in public administration. Policy and Society34(3–4): 219–228. DOI: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.005.
64.
PetersG (2015) Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
65.
PetersMDJGodfreyCMKhalilH, et al. (2015) Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare13(3): 141–146. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.
66.
PettigrewAMWhippR (1993) Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
67.
PolverariLDomorenokEGrazianoP (2022) Empowerment via delegation? The administrative capacity-building potential of cohesion policy urban development strategies. Regional Studies58: 733–744. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2022.2058698.
68.
ProvéCDesseinJKromM (2016) Taking context into account in urban agriculture governance: case studies of Warsaw (Poland) and Ghent (Belgium). Land Use Policy56(November): 16–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.025.
69.
QianHWongC (2012) Master planning under urban-rural integration: the case of Nanjing, China. Urban Policy and Research30(4): 403–421. DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2012.737778.
70.
Ripoll GonzalezLGaleF (2023) Sustainable city branding narratives: a critical appraisal of processes and outcomes. Journal of Place Management and Development16(1): 20–44. DOI: 10.1108/JPMD-09-2021-0093. Laura.
71.
RobertsP (2009) Sustainable communities policy, practice and professional development: A model for Europe. In: CooperISymesM (eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 127–144.
72.
RomanoGC (2014) Strategies for sustainable urban development: towards green (Er) Chinese cities?Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration36(3): 233–247. DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2014.944748.
73.
RydinYMooreS (2009) Sustainable construction and policy learning in Europe Cascades, networks or fragmentation? In: CooperISymesM (eds) Sustainable Urban Development: Changing Professional Practice. London and New York: Routledge, Vol. 4: 27–44.
74.
SchellerDThörnH (2018) Governing ‘sustainable urban development’ through self-build groups and cohousing: the cases of Hamburg and Gothenburg. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research42(5): 914–933. DOI: 10.1111/1468-2427.12652.
75.
SeabrookeWYeungSCWMaFMF, et al. (2004) Implementing sustainable urban development at the Operational level (with special reference to Hong Kong and Guangzhou). Habitat International28(3): 443–466. DOI: 10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00043-2.
76.
ShawooZMaltaisADzeboA, et al. (2023) Political drivers of policy coherence for sustainable development: An analytical framework. Environmental Policy and Governance33(4): 339–350. DOI: 10.1002/eet.2039.
77.
ShengYK (2010) Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Environment and Urbanization Asia1(2): 131–147. DOI: 10.1177/097542531000100203.
78.
SminiaH (2016) Pioneering process research: Andrew Pettigrew’s contribution to management scholarship, 1962-2014. International Journal of Management Reviews18(2): 111–132. DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12063.
79.
StigtRDriessenPPJSpitTJM (2013) A window on urban sustainability. Integration of environmental interests in urban planning through ‘decision windows. Environmental Impact Assessment Review42(September): 18–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2013.04.002.
80.
TchindaATalbotD (2024) Barriers and enablers of environmental policy coherence: A systematic review. Environmental Policy and Governance34(1): 77–92. DOI: 10.1002/eet.2057.
81.
TretterEM (2013) Contesting sustainability: ‘SMART growth’ and the Redevelopment of Austin’s Eastside. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(1): 297–310. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01166.x.
82.
TriccoALillieEZarinW, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine169(7): 467–473. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850.
83.
TurcuC (2012) Local Experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods. Progress in Planning78(3): 101–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2012.04.002.
VarolCErcoskunOYGurerN (2011) Local participatory mechanisms and collective actions for sustainable urban development in Turkey. Habitat International35(1): 9–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2010.02.002.
87.
WamslerCLawsonN (2011) The role of formal and informal Insurance mechanisms for reducing urban disaster risk: a South-North Comparison. Housing Studies26(2): 197–223. DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2011.542087.
88.
ZwetAFerryM (2019) Integrated sustainable urban development strategies in the European union: Added value and challenges. In: MedeirosE (ed) Territorial Cohesion: The Urban Dimension. Cham: Springer, 111–129. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-03386-6_6.
