Keywords

Introduction

Global population shifts towards urban areas have led to the issue of rapid urbanization becoming more prominent within discourse on sustainability. A sustained global trend of urbanization is anticipated, with the percentage or the population living in urban areas expected to increase from 56% in 2021 to 68% by 2050 (UN Habitat, 2023). Cities are the pivotal geographical units that concentrate economic activity, enable rapid technology deployment and enhance social diversity (SDSN, 2013). This transformative force of urbanization could be used to accelerate global sustainable development (UN Habitat, 2016). At the same time, the environmental impact of rapid urbanization, marked by increased pollution, resource depletion and habitat destruction, underscores the urgency of incorporating sustainable practices into urban development.

The influence of urbanization extends across diverse sociocultural, political, environmental and economic dimensions, fostering interactive processes that hold the potential for realigning urban systems towards sustainability. These dimensions encompass urban society, ecology, technology and infrastructure, urban culture and lifestyle, as well as governance and institutional frameworks (Frantzeskaki et al., 2017; Rotmans, 2006). Cities have evolved into spatial frameworks where these realignments actively unfold, constituting a process referred to as “transformation”—a fundamental shift towards sustainability (Frantzeskaki et al., 2017; Wolfram & Frantzeskaki, 2016).

In light of this understanding, the collaborative nature of contemporary research endeavours transcends traditional boundaries, engaging diverse stakeholders from research organizations, the private sector and civil society. Research partnerships emerge as catalysts for holistic and effective urban sustainability transformations, directly addressing the multifaceted challenges faced by cities worldwide and seeking innovative solutions through optimal synergies. The integration of innovative technologies and practices facilitated by these partnerships propels the adoption of smart infrastructure and green innovations in urban landscapes. Importantly, their influence extends to policy development, where research findings advocate for informed decision-making, influencing the prioritization of sustainability in urban planning. The global networking facilitated by these collaborations becomes a conduit for sharing experiences and best practices, contributing to a collective understanding of urban sustainability and fostering the adoption of successful models across diverse contexts.

The EU has instituted funding initiatives to propel actions for urban transformation, including through its research and innovation framework programme. This chosen focus stems from a recognition that collective efforts in science, technology and innovation are critical for the EU’s progress and competitiveness. Contributing to the broader integration agenda of the EU, collaborative initiatives seek to break down barriers, promote knowledge exchange and foster a sense of shared purpose among member states. The programmes contribute to building a robust innovation ecosystem, supporting startups, fostering entrepreneurship and facilitating the transfer of research findings into practical applications (EC [European Commission], 2021).

Against this backdrop, the study aims to delve into the evolution of partnerships within research networks of the EU research and innovation framework programmes. Specifically, it scrutinizes the dynamic landscape of research collaborations in the thematic realm of urban transformation across the seventh Framework Programme for research funding (FP7) (2007–2013) and its successor Horizon 2020 (2014–2020), providing a temporal comparison to unveil partnership shifts. Through a critical examination of the EU’s involvement in a total of 193 urban transformation projects, this study attempts to contribute to an understanding of successful strategies and collaborative cases, setting the stage for more informed and impactful initiatives in urban transformation and sustainable development, transcending geographical boundaries.

Analysis of the EU-Funded Research and Innovation Projects in Urban Transition

Methodology and Data

Social network analysis (SNA) was used to explore urban research projects in FP7 and Horizon 2020, revealing the complex connections in networks composed of nodes (individuals/entities) and ties (connections). SNA goes beyond descriptive statistics, offering insights into qualitative aspects of organizational collaboration, such as resource flows and relational dependencies. Various metrics were employed to characterize network connections, including network size, average degree and centrality. Centrality emerged as a crucial concept, influencing overall network structure and functionality. The degree of centrality, a well-established measure, quantifies the number of direct relationships a node maintains. This study also analysed “ego-centric networks” (Batallas & Yassine, 2006), providing insights into partnership behaviours at the level of the individual organization.

The ego-centric approach is applied in this study to evaluate the partnership behaviours of an individual organization’s network: a research institution (the central node) and the neighbours directly connected to it (the alters) (Everett & Borgatti, 2006). It also clarifies the local circumstances and variations in the behaviour of individual research organisations.

The research focuses on analysing 193 R&I projects in the field of urban research that were funded by the EU between 2007 and 2020 (Table 10.1). The data used in this study were sourced from a publicly available official project database of the EU called CORDIS. To assess changes in project partnerships for different periods, we compared the networks formed by the relevant projects from two different phases: the FP7 spanning 2007 to 2013, and the Horizon 2020, covering 2014 to 2020. This study selected projects, the objectives of which include the keywords “urban”, “city” or “cities”, “regions”, and “community”. Consequently, 73 projects on the urban research were extracted from 501 projects under the “environment (including climate change)” section of the FP7, whereas 120 projects were extracted out of 762 projects under the “Climate action, environment, resource efficiency, and raw materials” section of the Horizon 2020.

Table 10.1 Description of EU-funded urban research project data used for the network analysis
Full size table

Statistical analyses were conducted to discern trends in the types of participating institutions. Overall, the number of projects focused on urban transformation increased by over 60% from 73 in FP7 to 120 in Horizon 2020, while the number of participating institutions surged from 809 to 1,865. The number of projects increased by 1.6 times, while the participation of institutions saw a 2.3-fold increase during the same period, implying that EU-supported urban research projects have evolved into more extensive endeavours, conducted through larger research networks.

The quantity of urban projects and organizations has expanded, and the type of collaborating entities has diversified, whereas the networks tend to be dominated by EU countries. Examining the proportion of project participation by organizational type, FP7 was predominantly led by research institutions or universities. In Horizon 2020, there was an upswing in business participation, accompanied by increased involvement from public and other institutions. This shift indicates a significant diversification in the network composition, which was previously dominated by research institutions. Conversely, as networks transitioned from FP7 to Horizon 2020, the participation of EU country-affiliated institutions notably increased, leading to a decrease in the involvement of organizations from non-EU countries.

Organizational data for each project consortium were collected and presented in a two-mode binary matrix that captures relationships between nodes and events. This matrix interprets projects as affiliated relationships, indicating the presence or absence of an organization’s involvement in a project with 1 or 0, respectively. To facilitate analysis, a two-mode matrix was transformed into a one-mode-valued matrix based on the actors, illustrating the distribution and strength of partnerships between organizations through projects, enabling the utilization of various SNA techniques using UCINET.

Network Analysis

The examination of the overall network properties of EU-funded urban research projects (Table 10.2) unveiled a noteworthy shift: while the average degree of each organization increased from 25.11 to 34.85, the overall density of the network decreased. This transformation was accompanied by a rise in the number of components and a leaning towards fragmentation. This dynamic suggests an augmentation in the frequency of connections between research institutions, an expansion in the network size, and the emergence of diverse players. However, the substantial increase in the number of organizational islands, devoid of interconnections, implies that the exchange of information and expertise did not diffuse uniformly across the entire network but rather remained confined within specific clusters.

Table 10.2 Overall network properties of the EU-funded urban research projects
Full size table

Moreover, the observed trend of increasing fragmentation, as indicated by the proportion of pairs of nodes unable to reach each other, serves as compelling evidence of a significant disconnection in mutual connectivity. This study provided a visual representation of the overall network structure, enabling the observation of patterns in urban research projects. In Fig. 10.1, node colour denotes the type of entities, while node shapes convey additional information about the affiliation of institutions. The size of the circle (nodes), captions and thickness of the lines represent the absolute number of connections; larger circles and letters indicate nodes with more connections. The network connections were refined to highlight robust partnerships, focusing specifically on those with more than three connections.

Fig. 10.1
2 network diagrams of F P 7 and Horizon 2020. 1. It includes Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche as one of the largest nodes. 2. I C L E I European Secretariat G M B H is the largest node.

(Source Authors’ own creation. Note Colour legend: RED—Research sector, YELLOW—Private sector, ORANGE—Public sector, BLUE—Higher education sector, GREEN—Others/Shape legend: CIRCLE—EU countries, RECTANGLE—Non-EU developed countries TRIANGLE—Non-EU developing countries)

Overall network structure (Cutoff of the relations > 2)

Full size image

Consequently, under FP7, EU universities played a prominent role, whereas the results for Horizon 2020 indicate increased participation from various types of institutions, including those classified as other entities. These other entities encompass initiatives, networks, NGOs, etc., capable of driving local implementation of urban research and engaging regional governments committed to sustainable urban development. Despite the emergence of numerous active and diverse organizations, it is notable that powerful core institutions with a high degree of centrality have emerged. Horizon 2020, in contrast to FP7, reveals centrally positioned institutions not only among universities and research centres but also among other entities and companies. For instance, within Horizon 2020, ICLEI is identified as the institution with an exceptionally large node size, signifying the highest degree of centrality. Additionally, circular nodes continued to dominate, underscoring the continued leadership of EU institutions. In summary, the significant aspects in Horizon 2020 are the dominance of the EU institutions and the emergence of diverse organizations with a high degree of centrality.

This study investigated the top-10 degree-central organizations in urban research projects conducted under FP7 and Horizon 2020, analysing their characteristics (see Table 10.3). The results showed that in FP7 the most influential organizations were primarily universities or research institutes in both EU and non-EU developed countries in the EU region, such as the UK and Norway. In contrast, Horizon 2020 included a diverse mix of industry, academia and other NGOs in the EU region. Within FP7, numerous key central organizations occupied top-ranking positions, demonstrating consistently high centrality values. In contrast, the landscape shifted in Horizon 2020, where ICLEI’s centrality value distinctly outshone that of other entities.

Table 10.3 List of the most degree-central organizations
Full size table

In summary, while FP7 urban research networks were characterized by active collaboration among multiple central organizations, Horizon 2020 presented a more unequal and hierarchical pattern, with one outstanding organization leading urban research. However, it is crucial not to oversimplify Horizon 2020 as centrally concentrated, as an examination of the overall network reveals a fragmented structure, with various isolated networks, contrasting with the more cohesive nature of FP7 networks.

In examining the ego networks of the most degree-central organizations in both FP7 and Horizon 2020 in Fig. 10.2, we observed noteworthy trends. The most influential organization in FP7, Joint Research Centre (JRC), predominantly engaged in collaborations with universities across both EU and non-EU developed countries. In Horizon 2020, ICLEI expanded its collaborative efforts to encompass a more diverse spectrum of EU organizations across different sectors. This observed shift in behaviour patterns among central organizations aligns with insights derived from the comprehensive analysis of the overall network structure.

Fig. 10.2
2 network diagrams of F P 7 and Horizon 2020. 1. Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche is one of the largest nodes. 2. I C L E I European Secretariat G M B H is the largest node.

(Source Authors’ own creation. Note Colour legend: RED—Research sector, YELLOW—Private sector, ORANGE—Public sector, BLUE—Higher education sector, GREEN—Others/Shape legend: CIRCLE—EU countries, RECTANGLE—Non-EU developed countries TRIANGLE—Non-EU developing countries)

Ego-network structure of the highest degree-central organizations (JRC and ICLEI)

Full size image

Within the framework of the European Union’s urban research network, we explore the dynamics of collaboration with non-EU entities. A scrutiny of the foundational statistics in Table 10.4 reveals that, among the 809 organizations participating in 73 FP7 urban research projects, 319 were non-EU entities, constituting 39.4% of the total. In contrast, under Horizon 2020, where 1,865 organizations engaged in 120 projects related to urban research, the number of non-EU entities notably decreased to 293, representing only 15.7% of the total. However, delving into the intricacies of EU–non-EU partnerships using descriptive analysis in Table 10.5 unveils a nuanced pattern.

Table 10.4 Overview of the EU-funded urban research projects in collaboration with non-EU countries
Full size table
Table 10.5 List of high-engagement organizations in EU–non-EU partnerships
Full size table

Table 10.5 presents a compilation of the Top-5 highly engaged EU organizations in collaboration with non-EU partners. These EU entities, characterized by the highest number of collaborations with non-EU countries, serve as “gatekeepers”, facilitating the entry of organizations from non-EU nations into the EU R&I network. A closer examination reveals that, in both FP7 and Horizon 2020, the most active organizations were predominantly research institutes or higher education institutions, with the exception of ICLEI, which, as a network, has the status of a non-governmental organization. Additionally, the degree-central EU institutions mentioned earlier exhibited strong collaboration performance in terms of the absolute number of collaborations with non-EU entities.

Conversely, organizations from non-EU countries with the highest number of collaborations with EU organizations can be interpreted as proactive “representatives” of non-EU countries seeking entry into the EU R&I network. In FP7, the list of highly engaged non-EU organizations collaborating with EU partners was largely dominated by institutions located in the EU region but not EU member states, such as Norway, and Switzerland, occupying the top five positions. In contrast, under Horizon 2020, institutions from Norway and Switzerland maintained positions in the top-5, and two Turkish universities emerged, highlighting a significant presence in the EU urban research network. These transformations are tied to the agreement on Turkey’s joining Horizon 2020 in June 2014, granting association status to research entities from Turkey (EC, 2014). To summarize, within the EU urban research network, although the absolute number of participations by non-EU entities has decreased, the prominence of central collaborating institutions outside the EU region suggests a strengthening of substantive collaboration with the third countries.

This evolution in the behaviour of central organizations and the diversification of the EU’s urban research network can be linked to emerging trends in response to diverse societal challenges within the field of urban research. The transformation reflects a need to understand and address the multi-dimensional societal issues inherent in urban research. Recognizing the complexity of these challenges, involving stakeholders from various sectors becomes pivotal. This shift in organizational collaborations may be attributed to the necessity of addressing the evolving and diverse societal challenges surrounding urban research, prompting EU institutions to diversify their partnerships over time.

This trend aligns with previous urban studies that emphasize the contributions of various stakeholders in urban areas. Stakeholders in urban environments possess diverse knowledge crucial for context-specific solutions that enhance sustainability (Reed, 2008; Soma et al., 2018). Additionally, the United Nations’ New Urban Agenda (UN, 2017) underscores the need for broad cross-sectoral and cross-level integration as a fundamental requirement for policy and institutional change.

Case Study

This research examines the changes in network patterns through a case study analysis, focusing on two projects: the HEREPLUS project under FP7 and the ARCH project under Horizon 2020. These projects feature the participation of the most degree-central EU institutions, JRC and ICLEI, alongside non-EU institutions. Both endeavours are dedicated to exploring complex challenges within the urban context, with a specific emphasis on addressing issues such as air pollution and risks to cultural heritage.

FP7: Health Risk from Environmental Pollution Levels in Urban Systems (HEREPLUS)

The FP7-funded HEREPLUS project is dedicated to comprehending the crucial link between deteriorating urban air quality and cardio-respiratory diseases, focusing specifically on pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter. The research is centred in major European urban areas, utilizing GIS technology to develop comprehensive risk maps and models concerning human health, pollutants and ozone concentrations (Table 10.6). The consortium, notable for its diversity, forms a collaborative network involving research organizations and higher education institutions across various European countries. Importantly, the inclusion of the University of Belgrade from Serbia, a non-EU member state situated in the east-European region, underscores the project’s commitment to international knowledge exchange in the field of urban research.

Table 10.6 Partnerships and collaboration of HEREPLUS under FP7
Full size table

Horizon 2020: Advancing Resilience of Historic Areas Against Climate-Related and Other Hazards (ARCH)

The Horizon 2020-funded ARCH project is dedicated to enhancing the resilience of historic areas against climate-related and other hazards. ARCH focuses on chronic stresses and acute shocks, considering unique aspects of historic areas such as physical, environmental, economic, social, cultural and political factors. The project collaborates with pilot cities, including Bratislava, Camerino, Hamburg and Valencia, to design models, methods, tools and datasets for decision-making and resilience enhancement (Table 10.7). The consortium of ARCH under Horizon 2020 reflects a diverse collaboration pattern, bringing together research organizations, higher education institutions and other entities from multiple countries. Notably, the project includes the participation of Korea, a non-EU member state, represented by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. This international involvement highlights the project’s commitment to a global perspective and the exchange of expertise beyond the EU borders.

Table 10.7 Partnerships and collaboration of ARCH under Horizon 2020
Full size table

These two projects were selected and analysed as examples of tasks in which projects with the most degree-central institutions participated during the FP7 and Horizon 2020 periods, and non-EU institutions were also part of the consortia. While serving as specific instances, they effectively showcase the evolution of the urban research collaboration network from FP7 to Horizon 2020. In the case of the FP7 project, HEREPLUS, the network predominantly centred on universities and research institutions within the EU region, with limited participation from non-EU institutions. However, the non-EU institution that was part of the project was in the broader European area. Conversely, the Horizon 2020 project, ARCH, demonstrated a more dynamic participation pattern, encompassing not only research institutions and universities but also other organizational types such as non-governmental organizations and associations. Notably, a Korean research institution from a non-EU country actively engaged in the project. This implies that over time, the EU-funded urban research has transformed from collaborative research primarily for academic advancement to socially impactful research addressing societal issues, embracing a multifaceted approach through the involvement of various stakeholders.

Conclusion

The study explored the evolution of partnerships in the thematic domain of urban transformation across FP7 (2007–2013) and Horizon 2020 (2014–20). Utilizing social network analysis, the research scrutinized the network structure involving 7,955 organizations in 1,263 projects, offering a temporal comparison to reveal partnership shifts.

The findings revealed that urban research networks under FP7 thrived on active collaboration among several central organizations, fostering a more egalitarian structure. In contrast, Horizon 2020 displayed a more hierarchical pattern, with a singular organization taking the lead in urban research. It is essential, however, not to oversimplify Horizon 2020 as centrally concentrated. An analysis of the entire network exposes a fragmented structure with numerous isolated networks, a departure from the more cohesive nature observed in FP7 networks. In addition, EU-funded urban research has evolved from predominantly academic collaboration in FP7 to a socially impactful research model in Horizon 2020, emphasizing a broader engagement with various stakeholders to address societal issues.

The shift in the behaviour of central organizations and the broadening scope of the EU’s urban research network are in line with emerging trends focused on tackling varied societal challenges within urban research. This shift emphasizes the importance of involving stakeholders from diverse sectors (public and private, research, civil society, etc.) to grasp and address the multifaceted societal issues inherent in urban research. The alteration in how organizations collaborate over time is a response to the urgent need to address evolving and diverse societal challenges, leading EU institutions to diversify their partnerships.

To further amplify this positive trajectory, the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) jointly initiated a significant bilateral Green Partnership, a milestone achieved during the EU-ROK Summit on May 22, 2023 (EC, 2023). This landmark move not only marked the commencement of negotiations for Korea’s association with Horizon Europe but also underscored a profound commitment to deepening collaboration in science and innovation. The comprehensive dedication extends to augmenting investments in research and development, fostering collaborative endeavours and facilitating the fluid mobility of researchers. As the study findings underscore the critical need for diversified partnerships across geographical boundaries and sectors involving diverse stakeholders, the Green Partnership emerges as a potent tool for fostering alliances between the EU and Korea. Urban innovations, in particular, become pivotal in this collective endeavour, reinforcing cooperation on various sustainability fronts, including climate policies, the just and clean energy transition and green technology. To ensure the successful implementation of the Green Partnership and promote effective green cooperation, it is essential to identify common and strategic research agendas between EU member states and Korea.