Tackling geographical inequalities is critical for ensuring that all parts of the country have the potential to prosper. When the UK was a member of the European Union, it was entitled to a share of funding from the EU’s structural and investment programmes. The UK government and devolved administrations used these pots of funding to support communities in the country’s most deprived regions.
Now that the UK has left the EU, the government has replaced these European funds with the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) , which provides combined authorities, districts, and unitary authorities (collectively known as lead authorities) with funding for communities, places, business, people and skills.
Targeting ‘left-behind’ areas
One of the key aims of the UKSPF is to target those places most in need. These ‘left-behind’ areas have deep-seated and long-standing high levels of deprivation. Their residents have lower skills levels, higher unemployment, longer public transport journey times, lower pay and poorer physical and mental health outcomes than the national average, and even than other deprived areas.
In addition, left-behind areas have insufficient social infrastructure – the connections, organisations and spaces to meet that enable communities to make positive changes for themselves. And many people living in these neighbourhoods feel disconnected or excluded from decisions that are made about how investment is directed in their communities.
Analysing the UKSPF’s performance
The UKSPF was launched in 2022, and was regarded as a major opportunity to overcome these issues. At the start of 2024, a report from the All Party Parliamentary Group for Left Behind Neighbourhoods presented its findings on how the UKSPF has affected England’s most deprived neighbourhoods.
Funding for left-behind areas
The analysis, published by Local Trust, finds that, while the UKSPF allocation formula does take deprivation into account, the spread of national distributions does not appropriately account for levels of community need – or deprivation, across the board. As a result, neighbourhoods that are in greatest need have not received the levels of funding required to tackle disparities in life outcomes and improve pride in place.
Tight bidding turnarounds
The report explains that lead authorities were given just over three months to submit their investment plans for a share of UKSPF funding. It suggests that this tight timeline put pressure on lead authorities to prioritise speed rather than need in their development. It also gave lead authorities little time to encourage genuine community engagement and consultation, or to build new networks with local organisations that might not otherwise become involved.
Funding town centres and responding to crises
Many left-behind areas feel that they have been neglected, in contrast to the funding of social and community projects for town centres and high streets. This report finds that several local authorities used UKSPF funding to top up existing town centre projects. While the report acknowledges the need to fund the regeneration of high streets, it underlines the importance of improving the outcomes of residents in places that are most in need, in line with the UKSPF’s aims.
The research also found that some lead authorities were using UKSPF funding to support people experiencing hardship because of the cost-of-living crisis. One local authority, for example, directed the funding to boost its community food pantry provision for local residents. The report’s authors are not critical of using UKSPF funds to support vulnerable people, but it notes that diverting funds in this way will not achieve genuine community transformation in left-behind neighbourhoods.
Community involvement
Embedding more meaningful community involvement in local levelling up investment is a key part of the new approach proposed for the UKSPF. However, the Local Trust report finds that many of the lead authorities containing left-behind neighbourhoods made no provision for community engagement in their investment plans:
“Local Trust heard from people who are working in communities, delivering UKSPF funded programmes. They reported that there had been very limited consultation by lead authorities, including consultation only with those voluntary and community organisations they already had an established relationship with; other community organisations had made efforts to find out more, but were finding it difficult to get information or to receive a hearing.”
Examples of good practice
Despite these disappointing findings, the report also highlights examples where lead authorities have played an effective part in the UKSPF process. Boston in Lincolnshire and North Northamptonshire ran extensive public consultations to encourage local engagement with their UKSPF bids. Kingston upon Hull, which contains eight left-behind areas, saw UKSPF is an opportunity to push funding to these neighbourhoods, rather than focusing on the city centre. And six of the lead authority investment plans or executive reports analysed by the research identified the unique and intersecting challenges specifically faced by residents of left-behind neighbourhoods.
A blueprint for a better UKSPF
The report concludes with a call for a reinvented funding model for the UKSPF, based on five recommendations:
Target hyper-local investment at ‘left-behind’ neighbourhoods
Confirm UKSPF funding over the long-term
Delegate UKSPF down to the community level
Build in a ring-fenced capacity-building budget to the communities and place strand
Make community involvement in ‘local partnership groups’ mandatory, in the absence of devolution
Final thoughts
The need to fund improvements for areas that for too long have been regarded as left-behind has never been greater. This report underlines the potential for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to make a real difference to these neighbourhoods, and highlights some examples where local authorities are developing communities most in need.
However, the report also points to the missed opportunities which have resulted in many of the most deprived areas yet again being neglected. It remains to be seen whether the recommendations in the report are adopted, and if this new approach to investment and the empowerment of local communities is given the chance to realise its full potential.
Our colleagues in GrantFinder continually monitor for new open calls for projects to be funded under UKSPF allocations. There are also thousands of alternative funding opportunities on the GrantFinder database for local communities and the VCSE sector across the country, as well as small businesses.
In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on ensuring people with ‘lived experience’ are involved in co-producing research and policy-making at practical, local level. However, there has been little discussion around what the people with lived experience themselves think about getting involved.
A recent webinar run by Transforming Evidence – a community that shares research and expertise about how evidence is made and used, across policy and practice domains – asked that very question: how can we make lived experience a genuine part of evidence informed policy?
So, it was especially refreshing to hear the views of Lynn Laidlaw during the Transforming Evidence webinar. Because of her experience as a patient with multiple health conditions, Lynn has had the opportunity to use her own lived experience to become a public contributor and peer researcher, and to influence policy-making in the field of health.
Lynn gave a personal, reflective account of the issues raised by her own lived experience. She admitted that the process of becoming involved in research caused her to reflect on how she fit into the process, raising questions concerning imposter syndrome and identity:
“Who was I? A researcher, or a person of lived experience? Could I be both? Did one negate the other?”
Lynn also underlined that involving people with lived experience in an equitable and ethical way requires time and resources and they should be offered remuneration for their time and effort.
She went on to discuss some of the key questions surrounding the involvement of people with lived experience:
Power
The phrase ‘lived experience’ holds power and weight in these ‘new’ political landscapes but what power do the people with the lived experience hold? And who decides the criteria for lived experience – can you really say to someone who has possibly been though a traumatic event that their trauma isn’t ‘lived experience enough’ to participate?
Culture
One of the biggest questions raised by Lynn was are you, as a person with lived experience, just a ‘tick box’ for the people who are organising a research study? This raises further questions as to how can we make people with lived experience feel valued in their opinions and their experience, how do we give them a value equal to those that are conducting the research, or the policy makers that will implement the research?
Emotions
Lynn also considered questions relating to emotional issues that are faced while being consulted to work on different projects. The biggest of these is: “does one person’s lived experience speak for all people with lived experience”? The answer would logically be no. However, this distinction is rarely made when consulting people with lived experiences as the panels are generally small. The fear of not being ‘representative enough’ of all people with lived experience is something that is continually at the back of their mind when going forward to give views and experiences and try and help inform policy for the better.
Intentions
Lynn’s final observations concerned the power participants have to ensure that their experiences and views make it into policy. The intentions behind a consultation of views is crucial for ensuring that a person with lived experience feels less of a charlatan. They will feel increasingly more valued members of society if the policies they are consulted on make it off the shelf and into mainstream politics. It is not enough to ask people for their time, views, and opinions to appease society and then do nothing with the information they have given you. It, again, raises interesting questions about making people feel valued and not just used as a token or to ‘tick a box.’
Final thoughts
Lynn very clearly demonstrated the importance and value of showing respect for people with lived experience. Because by listening to and learning from people with relevant lived experiences, policy makers are more likely to make decisions that make a positive difference.
The recent appointment of Marc Lemaître as the European Commission’s director general for research and innovation (R&I) has returned Europe’s R&I gap to the spotlight. Previously head of DG REGIO, the Commission’s directorate for regional development, Lemaître’s experience and knowledge of regional disparities is widely seen as a welcome boost in addressing the historic disparity in the flow of research funding between eastern and western Europe.
The experience of successive European Union (EU) R&I framework programmes shows that the ability to successfully conduct transnational research projects often varies dramatically between regions and countries. Despite successive programmes promising equality of opportunity and access, some countries remain distinctly disadvantaged when research excellence is the determining factor.
The EU has recognised that such disadvantage can take a variety of forms. These include a lack of scientific infrastructure, the ability to establish or access networks or to maintain and retain talents, and the capacity to overcome structural barriers at institutional, regional or national level.
Beginning with Horizon 2020 (2014-2020), the EU introduced measures to widen participation and targeted the 13 countries that had joined the Union since 2004, namely, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
This increased focus led to mixed results. The Commission reported that Widening countries gradually increased their participation throughout Horizon 2020. While Widening country participation represented 4.2% of the total budget of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), this had risen to 4.8% of the Horizon 2020 budget by 2018 and 5.1% in February 2021. However, the average investment in R&I in the EU was 2.3% of GDP by 2020 – below the 3% target. Of the 13 Widening countries, only Slovenia and Czech Republic invested more than 2%.
Countries that joined the EU after 2004 continue to have relatively under-developed R&I systems, score lower on the EU’s R&I league tables and crucially, when it comes to framework programmes, are far less successful in securing grant funding compared to their research powerhouse neighbours. If the actions introduced between 2014 and 2020 were insufficient to bridge the research gap, what could be done next?
Widening in Horizon Europe
New Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence actions were introduced as part of Horizon Europe (2021-2027) to provide additional support to Member States, Outermost Regions and Associated Countries with low participation rates in FP7 and Horizon 2020 projects to widen their participation in the current framework programme.
Furthermore, the total budget allocated to Widening actions under Horizon Europe has tripled compared with those supported under Horizon 2020, with these actions representing 3.3% of the total €95.5 million Horizon Europe budget. In 2023-24 alone, more than €900 million has been allocated to actions under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence Work Programme.
All organisations eligible for Horizon Europe may participate in Widening actions, but only those based in Widening countries may act as coordinators. All Member States classed as Widening countries under Horizon 2020 have retained this status under Horizon Europe, except for Luxembourg, which was replaced by Greece. In addition, the following Associated Countries may apply as coordinators: Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe Islands, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine.
Calls launched under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence component are divided into two destinations – Destination 1: Improved access to Excellence, to strengthen R&I capacities in Widening countries, and Destination 2: Attracting and mobilising the best talents, to support further progress on the free circulation of knowledge in a more efficient and effective R&I system.
Actions funded under the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme include:
Teaming for Excellence: Creates new or modernises existing centres of excellence in Widening countries by supporting partnerships between beneficiary institutions in Widening countries and leading scientific institutions elsewhere in Europe.
Twinning: Boosts the networking activities of research institutions of Widening countries by linking them with at least two research institutions from two different EU or Associated Countries.
Pathways to Synergies: New under the 2023-24 Work Programme, this scheme aims to facilitate synergies between Horizon projects and funds under the cohesion policy in Widening countries. The goal is to help formerly isolated single beneficiaries of regional funding programmes to participate in cross-border collaboration in order to prepare for participation in Horizon Europe calls.
Excellence Hubs: Aims to improve innovation by enabling innovation ecosystems in Widening countries (and beyond) to team up and create better linkages between academia, business, government and society.
Hop-on Facility: Introduced for Horizon Europe, this mechanism allows a single participant from a Widening country to join an ongoing project under Horizon Europe Pillar 2 and the European Innovation Council (EIC) Pathfinder topics.
Widening actions are also delivered via the framework of the European Research Area (ERA). ERA Chairs enable research institutions in Widening countries to host a leading researcher for a period of five years. ERA Fellowships enable researchers to undertake their MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship in a Widening country, while ERA Talents support R&I investigators and organisations for cross-sectoral exchange of staff and academia-business collaboration for knowledge transfer with a focus on Widening countries.
Another mechanism by which the Commission supports Widening is through the COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) programme, which enables researchers lacking sufficient access to European and international networks to investigate a topic of their choice for four years. A single COST Action must involve at least seven different COST full or cooperating members, among which a minimum of 50% must be from inclusiveness target countries.
The Commission also encourages applicants to partner with Widening countries throughout its funding channels. For instance, one of the key objectives of the QuantERA ERA-NET Cofund in Quantum Technologies Cofund Call 2023 is to ‘spread excellence throughout Europe by involving partners from the Widening countries participating in the partnership’, while several calls launched under the Horizon Europe Clusters also encourage applicants to involve Widening countries.
Progress under Horizon Europe?
Two years into Horizon Europe, figures from the Commission’s Horizon Dashboard indicate that the average success rate of Widening countries in obtaining funding through Horizon Europe is approximately 20%. This figure is equal to the EU 27 average, suggesting that some progress is being made.
Despite this, signs of progress are tempered by the scale of the remaining gap. During Horizon Europe’s first two years, Germany proportionally received more than all the Widening countries combined. As the top-performing country, Germany received 15.5% of the total net EU contribution, compared to 14.3% shared between the Widening countries.
The scale of this gap at the structural level can be seen in the fifth edition of the EU Regional Competitiveness Index 2.0, published in March 2023, which measures the competitiveness of regions across the EU. While this report noted a ‘clear process of catching up’ in eastern and southern EU Member States between 2019 and 2022, it highlighted that the gap between more and less developed regions was widest on the report’s ‘Innovation’ sub-index of metrics and its pillars.
The report also highlighted the persistence of internal gaps within Member States. Some regions in countries including Romania, Slovakia and parts of Bulgaria were found to be moving away from the EU average, while the capital city regions of the three least competitive EU Member States were significantly more competitive than the other regions in these countries. This is a potential cause for concern as it puts pressure on the capital city region while possibly leaving resources under-utilised in other regions.
In this context, the extent to which central European funding opportunities alone can produce far-reaching results is contested. Published in June 2022, a special European Court of Auditors report argued that a real shift depends largely on national governments making R&I a priority to ramp up investment and reforms. While Widening measures can kick-start progress in Widening countries, on their own they lack enough power to create the changes needed in national R&I ecosystems.
In response to the European Court of Auditors, the EU Council adopted conclusions on the report in October 2022. The Council took note of the Court’s conclusion that genuine sustainable change requires continuous national investments and reforms in national R&I systems and called on the Commission to monitor participation levels and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the whole portfolio of Widening measures. If continuous significant imbalances emerge, the need for more tailor-made actions and targeted networking activities to achieve a wider level of participation and address disparities in participation should be assessed.
What are stakeholders saying?
A valuable resource for obtaining sector feedback on the success or otherwise of Widening actions can be observed in responses to a consultation into the past, present and future of the Commission’s Horizon programmes covering 2014-2027. This survey, which ran for 12 weeks from December 2022 to February 2023, enabled stakeholders to share their views on the performance of Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe to date, and to identify future priorities for Horizon Europe’s Strategic Plan 2025-2027. From this survey, a number of organisations offered their thoughts on the Widening Participation and Spreading Excellence programme.
In its submission, the Coimbra Group of European universities noted that the ambitions of Widening actions are welcome but stated that these dedicated actions risk diverting funds from other essential programmes, such as the ERC and MSCA.
The Group highlighted the potential pitfalls of singling out countries for Widening actions, warning that organisations in higher-performing countries should not see partnering with those in Widening countries as an act out of the ordinary in and of itself; instead, these countries should be regarded as standard partners. As such, the presence of dedicated Widening calls should not discourage organisations in Widening countries from applying to non-Widening actions elsewhere in Horizon Europe.
Coimbra recommended that the Commission reflect on why some Widening countries have such low participation figures, citing the example of Romania receiving no funding for Teaming activities despite submitting 44 such proposals, and to consider the role of national governments in stimulating participation rates. In addition, Horizon Europe applicants should be incentivised to include partners in Widening countries at the very start of the proposal preparation process as an alternative approach to the new Hop-on Facility.
Other recommendations include urging the Commission to issue equally relevant calls for all Widening countries in the future, rather than issuing dedicated calls for sub-groups of countries, and actively involving those countries in the consultation process when designing future funding instruments.
Coimbra’s concerns about the practicalities of Widening actions were echoed by the Danish Agency for Higher Education and Science, which welcomed the goal of the programme but warned that a shift in the Framework Programme’s focus away from excellence would be ‘detrimental’ to its attractiveness and the overall competitiveness of the EU. The Netherlands house for Education and Research suggested that the ideal end-result of the Widening programme would be to narrow the R&I gap so significantly that the programme’s existence would become ‘superfluous’.
Science Europe, which represents 40 national research funding agencies and research organisations from 30 European countries, noted that while developments under Horizon Europe were positive, challenges remain, with brain circulation below target levels and participation rates remaining imbalanced. While it regarded the Hop-on Facility as ‘interesting’, it noted that existing consortia are often disinclined to add new members once their projects are underway.
Regarding some of the practical challenges facing Widening countries, Science Europe warned that the increased size and budget of Pillar II projects makes it harder for those countries to take leading roles in projects, suggesting that a greater number of smaller projects should be supported to mitigate this. Nevertheless, it concluded that narrowing the gap in participation and R&I capacity across Europe should ‘remain a priority’.
The League of European Research Universities (LERU) offered practical proposals to ensure the programme achieves its desired aims. It noted that the ERA actions are ‘considered useful’ by Widening countries and suggested that these and other mechanisms found to be particularly effective could be prioritised and run more consistently to improve their effectiveness. LERU also advised the Commission to evaluate the success of the Hop-on Facility before dedicating further funding to its operation.
Somewhat contrary to Coimbra’s suggestion to avoid focusing on narrow subsets of countries, LERU hailed the positive impact of previous Twinning activities dedicated solely to countries with the very lowest participation rates in Horizon Europe, describing these actions as ‘crucial’. The Twinning Western Balkans call run in 2021 was cited as a particularly successful example which ‘should be repeated’.
The European Trade Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO) noted that measures to strengthen the participation rates of Widening countries have been an ‘important and positive’ development of Horizon Europe but cautioned that they were ‘far from sufficient’. It urged the Commission to take further steps to improve the R&I capabilities of Widening countries, and to specifically support schemes that develop capacity-building of their research institutions, especially those that will improve applied research capabilities.
EARTO also called for ‘attention and reconsideration’ regarding the Hop-on Facility, citing ‘serious hurdles’ to its practical implementation. This was echoed by the Polish Chamber of Commerce for High Tech Technology, which highlighted ‘many bottlenecks’ in the mechanism’s implementation.
The Chamber agreed with LERU that ERA Chairs and Twinning opportunities – in addition to the Teaming for Excellence scheme – have positive impacts for Widening countries and should be continued. However, it noted that research management and administration is ‘one of the weakest link(s)’ of research organisations in Widening countries. It recommended that the Commission establish dedicated calls to facilitate the exchange of best practices, shadow mentoring and knowledge transfer at a large scale to reach a significant number of R&I institutions.
Across these stakeholder submissions, a general consensus can be observed of organisations commending the ambitions of the Widening programme and highlighting successful measures, while urging the EU to go beyond efforts to improve participation rates in Horizon Europe and focus on the root systemic causes of the disparity in the R&I infrastructure of countries across Europe.
Recent developments indicate that the Commission is taking such concerns seriously. In March 2023, the Commission launched a call for expression of interest for Regional Innovation Valleys (RIVs) to strengthen and advance European innovation ecosystems. The RIVs will connect all EU territories and focus on addressing the innovation divide by harnessing deep-tech innovation. The ambition is to identify up to 100 regions committed to better coordinating their R&I investments and policies, and to collaborating on inter-regional innovation projects.
The Commission is also in the process of launching two calls for proposals in May 2023 under the European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE) part of Horizon Europe, and the Interregional Innovative Investments (I3) of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). With a focus on addressing the innovation divide, a total of €170 million is allocated (€100 million and €70 million respectively).
ResearchConnect provides ongoing coverage of research funding and policy developments to support the international research community. We offer a user-friendly database containing a global source of research opportunities, covering a broad range of funders and disciplines. Our news content features the most recent research calls and funder updates, opening a window on the latest funding opportunities and developments to researchers worldwide.
Today sees the start of Community Garden Week 2023. Across the UK, communities will be celebrating the many and varied types of community gardens, from children’s and neighbourhood gardens to therapy gardens and allotments.
The benefits of community gardens are almost endless. Evidence suggests that spending time outdoors in green spaces has positive effects on mental and physical health. Community gardens are also social spaces, bringing volunteers from different backgrounds together, which can reduce loneliness and help people of all ages learn more about nature. Community gardens have numerous positive environmental impacts, including improvements to air, soil and water, as well as increasing the biodiversity of plants and animals.
Strong roots, vital functions
Community gardens have their roots in agrarian societies dating back thousands of years. Later, as people moved into cities, many of them transformed plots of urban land into green spaces. These have been especially important for growing food in times of crisis. During World War II, the government’s “Dig For Victory” campaign transformed Britain from a food importer to a largely self-sufficient economy. By the end of the war, 75% of food was homegrown and there were 1.4 million allotments across the country.
During the post-war years, the UK’s reliance on food imports has risen, and by 2020 almost half of our food came from overseas. At the same time, supermarkets have overtaken shops selling local produce, and there has been a steep rise in consumption of processed foods, with subsequent impacts on the nation’s health.
Back to the land
But in recent years, things have started to change. The Covid-19 pandemic underlined the value of green spaces for improving our health and wellbeing. In addition, greater attention to healthy eating, environmental protection and rising food costs has attracted more people to the idea of growing their own fruit and vegetables, herbs and flowers.
Governments have taken note of these trends, and at national and local levels they have introduced measures aiming to make it easier to establish community gardens. One such example is the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act. Passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2015, the aim of this law is to support communities in doing things for themselves. Part 9 of the Act concerns increasing the accessibility of the land to those who wish to grow their own food.
The Act requires every Scottish local authority to prepare and publish its own food growing strategy. These strategies identify land for allotments and other community growing and describe how the authority will meet demand. While preparing their strategies, local authorities have consulted a wide range of stakeholders, including allotment associations, community councils, current allotment holders and existing community gardens.
Planning departments need to be involved in the preparation of food growing strategies, and will also require consultation about consents for community garden projects. But there is a clear shift towards official encouragement of community growing. The Scottish Government’s most recent National Planning Framework specifically mentions the importance of land for community food growing as an integral part of placemaking.
Food Growing Strategies: diverse ideas in action
The food growing strategies published so far demonstrate that Scotland’s local authorities have enthusiastically embraced the responsibilities placed upon them by the Community Empowerment Act.
Scottish Borders Council’s Food Growing Strategy includes ideas on getting started in growing activities, guidance on available support and information about existing community gardens and orchards in the region. It also features case studies of successful community gardens, including the Greenhouse Project in Galashiels, which provides home-grown produce for food parcels distributed to local families. The project also provides live cookery classes for children and recipe bags to support home cooking and healthier meals.
Argyll and Bute Council’s Food Growing Strategy features examples of good practice, including a case study of the Kyles Allotment Group, which was set up after the community purchased Acharossan Forest. The group rents plots to local people who grow a variety of fruit and vegetables, and there is also a community orchard.
Falkirk Council’s Food Growing Strategy explains how the council plans to increase space for allotments and community growing, including using some of the 632 parks and open spaces across the area for new growing sites.
The preparations for Glasgow’s Food Growing Strategy included a series of community engagement meetings across the city at which people were asked to identify any potential growing sites in their area. As a result, the strategy provides a map of existing and potential allotment sites in Glasgow.
Growing pains
The increasing popularity of home-grown food has underlined the shortage of growing spaces. Last year, local authorities in Scotland reported high numbers of people were waiting for an allotment. In Edinburgh, the figure was 2,637, with a similar number in Glasgow. In some council areas the waiting list dated back 10 years.
In response to the significant demand for allotments, the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee launched an inquiry to scrutinise the delivery of local authorities’ responsibilities concerning community growing under the Community Empowerment Act. The Committee published its findings in 2022.
Among the challenges identified by the inquiry was the difficulty in gaining access to land for growing. Some witnesses giving evidence to the Committee expressed frustration about large amounts of vacant land that had the potential as growing spaces being unused by developers. The Committee also repeatedly heard that limited resources in planning departments were holding up applications for new allotments.
Among its recommendations, the Committee suggested that the Scottish Government might explore whether the provisions of Part 9 of the Community Empowerment Act could be extended beyond local authority owned allotments to other sites, such as those offered by the NHS, or to private allotment sites.
Beyond allotments: community growing opportunities
The shortage of allotments doesn’t mean people can’t get involved. Volunteering websites advertise numerous opportunities to join community garden projects. While previous experience is welcomed, most community gardens are just happy to receive help of any kind. And for the volunteers, enjoying the fresh air, meeting new people and learning new skills are just some of the rewards of taking part.
Food poverty, climate change, health inequalities and social isolation are among the big challenges of our age. No-one is suggesting that community growing projects can solve these problems on their own. But in their own modest way, community gardens are improving the lives of individuals, enriching communities and doing their bit for the planet.
UNESCO’s Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2022 takes place from 24-31 October 2022 under the theme of “Nurturing Trust”, giving governments, educators, information professionals, and media professionals the chance to discuss and reflect on critical issues that the world is facing in relation to misinformation and disinformation, and the challenges of navigating the online environment.
What is media and information literacy?
Media and information literacy (MIL) is defined by UNESCO as “an interrelated set of competencies that help people to maximise advantages and minimize harms in the new information, digital and communication landscapes”.
Previously, media literacy (ML) and information literacy (IL) have been treated as distinct concepts, with ML focusing specifically on media engagement, and IL referring in a broader sense to information skills such as search, discovery, access, analysis, and management.
In the early 2000s, UNESCO united the concepts under the umbrella term of media and information literacy (MIL), and while there is still some debate among ML and IL experts about whether this is the best approach, it is generally accepted that there is value in grouping them together to develop holistic policies and initiatives.
The UK’s Media and Information Literacy Alliance (MILA) have chosen also to treat the two concepts as one. They define MIL as “the ability to engage fully with media and information in people’s connected daily lives…engaging with media and information safely and healthily, critically and actively, with positive social consequences”.
Key MIL competencies include the skills and abilities to find, critically evaluate, interpret, manage, create, communicate, store, and share media and information, both online and offline.
Why is it important?
With rapid technological developments in recent decades and the exponential growth of media and information online, it is vital that people are equipped to navigate this increasingly complex landscape. MIL is therefore becoming a growing priority for key stakeholders including librarians, teachers, policymakers, media professionals, and youth organisations.
UNESCO estimates that 60% of the global population are internet users, and as this number grows and social media becomes an increasingly powerful tool, it is vital that people across the world can recognise potentially harmful content and prevent its spread.
MILA and UNESCO have highlighted concerns about the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories around Covid-19, the climate crisis and violent extremism, and have warned that the spread of such misinformation threatens to weaken social unity, undermine democracy, and erode trust in government and the media on a global scale.
Increased access to online environments has led to a blurring of the lines between consumers and producers of information. As it becomes easier to create and share content online, it becomes increasingly difficult to effectively evaluate such content, distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, and form balanced and informed perspectives.
The skills associated with MIL are crucial to addressing these issues, and there is a clear case for MIL initiatives that help people to develop these skills as a part of their lifelong learning. Being able to understand where information comes from, identify ‘fake news’, recognise bias, think critically about different perspectives, and create and share media responsibly, can encourage greater civic engagement and empower individuals and communities to create positive change.
MIL initiatives and resources
UNESCO are leaders in the global MIL arena in terms of influencing policy and strategy. Their Media and Information Literacy Alliance (distinct from the UK’s MILA) was set up to facilitate strategic partnerships and networks among the global MIL community and is open to all organisations and individuals.
In the UK, MILA was launched in response to the government’s Online Media Literacy Strategy, which was published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in July 2021. DCMS have since launched their Media Literacy Programme Fund which is intended to award grants for UK media literacy initiatives.
The event included a presentation on UNESCO’s MIL initiatives by Sheila Webber, Director of the Centre for Information Literacy Research at the University of Sheffield. Webber discussed the scope and impact of UNESCO’s work on MIL, noting the value of their publications and initiatives while highlighting the need for stronger partnerships and communication between stakeholders at the global level.
A panel discussion took place on issues around MIL for young people in Scotland and included a conversation about ‘Maddie is Online’ – a project aimed at developing MIL among pre-teen children through a video cartoon series addressing key challenges of the online environment.
The event also included a presentation on Ofcom’s ‘Making Sense of Media’ project, which involved in-depth research on the current state of media literacy in the UK and pilot initiatives promoting MIL among underserved communities.
A session delivered by Dr Ann Wales from the Digital Health & Care Innovation Centre discussed the ‘Information for Wellbeing’ course which was recently developed with NHS Scotland and the Scottish Library and Information Council (SLIC), to equip library staff with skills to help users find trusted health and wellbeing information. Dr Wales emphasised the importance of literacies in enabling engagement and influencing national policy change.
Final thoughts
There is a clear need for focused efforts to develop MIL and enable people to engage effectively with media and information. As demonstrated by the work of UNESCO and MILA, collaboration and strategic partnerships are key, and initiatives like Global MIL Week offer a valuable opportunity for the international and cross-sectoral communication needed to coordinate the global effort to ensure MIL for all.
Further reading: more about information, media and digital skills on the Knowledge Exchange blog:
In May 2020, Google-affiliated Sidewalk Labs abruptly cancelled its smart city vision for Toronto’s waterfront, citing that “unprecedented economic uncertainty” created by the pandemic had made the project unachievable.
Named ‘Quayside’, the venture proposed a 12-acre development of sleek apartments and neighbourhood amenities that heavily incorporated data and technology into urban design and residents’ daily living.
Including an underground delivery system and ice-melting heated roads, the futuristic plan aimed to turn Toronto into the world’s first truly ‘smart city’.
Yet, the Quayside development faced fierce criticism before it could even get underway.
Planned for the heart of the development was the harvesting of an extensive flow of data, amassed by studying millions of residents’ daily movements through sensor-laden streets and buildings.
However, critics saw a darker side to Sidewalk Labs, fearing that residents’ data would be stored and used by Google. Such fears only intensified after a series of publicised data breaches at Big Tech companies.
US businessman Roger McNamee described the project as “the most highly evolved version to date of surveillance capitalism”, warning that Google would use “algorithms to nudge human behaviour” for corporate interests.
Despite Sidewalk’s assurances that the data collected wouldn’t be shared with third parties, Toronto city council members began to voice official concerns. A National Research Council report stated that Canada was in danger of becoming a “data cow” for foreign tech companies.
After years of a controversial public debacle that played out in court rooms and street protests, the proposals were eventually abandoned altogether.
An industry slowing down
The story of Quayside’s defeat perhaps has greater implications for the future of smart city culture. Toronto has coincided with numerous high-profile examples of downscaling in grand smart city projects across the world, such as Songdo in South Korea and the ill-famed Masdar City in Abu Dhabi.
In fact, the overall trend of the smart city sector is declining, as the regions with the most smart-city deployments have seen large drop-offs in new developments. For instance, the number of new projects in Europe increased year-on-year to a peak of 43 in 2016- yet fell to just 17 in 2020.
Likewise, data suggests that the major suppliers to government smart city projects have considerably weakened their influence on the sector. Since 2016, companies such as Cisco Systems, Vodafone and Telensa have greatly reduced the number of new developments that they are undertaking, whilst there are numerous examples of backtracking throughout the industry.
In late 2020, Cisco Systems announced that the company was scrapping its flagship smart-city software altogether. Such instances suggest at least a slowing down in production ventures or perhaps even a full-on shift in company priorities.
So, why is the smart city bandwagon beginning to falter?
Not ‘smart’ enough post-pandemic?
Whilst the privacy backlash movement that finished off Quayside is exemplary of existing privacy concerns before Covid-19, the pandemic may have further compounded the barriers faced by the smart city.
The hard-hitting financial implications and uncertainties created by the pandemic have presumably put ambitious smart city projects on the back burner, as city governments re-align their priorities towards economic recovery.
“They’ve [smart city technology providers] all seen the challenges and the opportunities in this pandemic moment,“says Nigel Jacob, co-chair of the Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics, a civic-innovation research lab in Boston. “I think they are still struggling and looking at their product portfolio and looking to see what value they can add. I do think the field has shifted.“
Jacob suggests that the pre-Covid landscape of smart city promotion has ultimately shifted, a viewpoint that is echoed throughout the industry. Many believe that the pandemic has forced city governments and citizens to re-evaluate their priorities of what needs to be achieved through urban areas.
David Bicknell, principal thematic analyst for GlobalData, argues “Smart cities had their time. They are no longer about glossy, sensor-driven metropolises.“ He adds, “The impact of the pandemic and climate change now means smart cities cannot just be ‘smart’ – they must be resilient and sustainable, too.”
It could be argued that there is now a greater focus for citizens in creating tangible outcomes in their communities on the key issues of climate change, health and social equity.
Whilst the potential for technology to contribute to driving change in these areas is undoubted, the idea that a smart city business model should just be about the city getting smarter is difficult to uphold in the landscape of post-pandemic finances.
With the exception of climate change issues, the traditional smart city does not look to tackle the big issues that have really been reinforced by the pandemic, Jacob argues.
Privacy concerns here to stay
The pandemic also introduced a new array of concerns surrounding data collection. Contact tracing apps, biometric vaccine passports and temperature scanning as a condition to entering premises have added fuel to the fire of privacy issues that people are now encountering.
Added to this, some academics worry that whilst these technologies have been accepted into day-to-day life under unprecedented measures, it leaves open the possibility of such platforms being manipulated for more sinister purposes in the future.
And, with the numerous high profile legal cases surrounding Facebook, Amazon and Google’s privacy policies now regular features in the media, the public is certainly more aware in its understanding of privacy issues since the Quayside story.
Final Thoughts
Despite how strongly opposed many residents were to the Toronto Quayside development, it is clear that the integration of sensors, scanners and cameras into city living is here to stay. And there are undoubted benefits of smart technologies that are already evident in cities throughout the world- from intelligent LED street lighting to data-driven traffic control systems.
However, for the potential of smart technologies to be truly realised and accepted by the public, the smart city must be re-aligned to fit the privacy conscious post-pandemic world.
Further reading: more about smart cities on The Knowledge Exchange Blog
It’s almost four months since the UN’s climate change conference took place in Glasgow. COP26 was headlined as a pivotal moment in the fight against global warming. But how much was achieved in Glasgow, and how much more action is needed if we’re to limit destructive levels of global temperature rises?
The legacies of COP26 were the focal point of a webinar last month, hosted by Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI). Mairi Spowage, the recently appointed Director of the FAI, welcomed Chris Stark, CEO of the Climate Change Committee and Steve Williams, senior partner at Deloitte Scotland, to consider how the outcomes from COP26 might influence government policy and business practice.
COP26 report card: a mixed picture
Chris Stark began with an upbeat assessment of COP26, noting that while it didn’t deliver everything hoped for, the inclusion of voices from civil society, business and finance added weight to the urgency of tackling climate change. Chris expects those voices to be influential in pushing governments to keep their promises on tackling climate change. He also welcomed the sectoral agreements announced in Glasgow on reducing the use of coal, cutting methane emissions and protecting forests.
That said, Chris warned that the agreements in Glasgow will not be enough to prevent the Earth’s average temperature exceeding a rise of 1.5 degrees C – the tipping point where many climate impacts go from destructive to catastrophic:
“The overall outcomes are still heading in the wrong direction. We went into the Paris COP in 2015 facing 3.6 degrees of warming. If we add up all the current policies that we see globally, we will leave Glasgow facing something like 2.7 degrees of warming.”
All of which heightens the importance of delivering every one of the emissions reduction targets which governments and businesses have set for 2030. Chris also stressed that some countries need to raise their levels of ambition, notably Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, China and Russia.
Business: the journey to tackling climate change
Business has a vital role to play in tackling global warming, and Steve Williams outlined where the corporate sector currently finds itself. Most of Deloitte’s clients have targets and governance in place to reduce their carbon footprints, although not all have a credible road map to achieving decarbonisation.
Steve went on to highlight four areas that are being worked on.
Many companies are trying to understand the scope 1, 2 and 3 carbon emissions targets, as well as setting science-based emissions targets, and investing in systems to obtain the right data to make sure they can stand behind the numbers that they publicise.
With regard to business operations, companies are attempting to truly understand their reliance on fossil fuels, switching to renewables, and exploring what other clean technologies are available. In addition, business is trying to have a clearer view of the vulnerabilities around supply chains that could result from climate change.
A third focal point for business is understanding investors’ expectations. Lenders are demanding more of companies in terms of decarbonisation, and they want to know about their roadmaps to sustainability.
The fourth area is one which Steve saw for himself during COP26. Businesses are starting to talk more about biodiversity and the health of our oceans. As a result, companies are moving towards ‘nature-friendly’ targets beyond existing decarbonisation goals.
Delivering on the promises: UK and Scottish Governments
As Chris Stark explained, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) advises the UK and devolved governments on emissions targets and reports to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In line with CCC advice, last year the UK Government set in law the world’s most ambitious climate change target, aiming to cut emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government’s net zero emissions target date of 2045 is ahead of many other countries, and it has also set a very ambitious target of a 75% reduction in emissions by 2030, relative to 1990 levels.
Chris Stark stressed that both the UK and Scotland are presenting good examples to the rest of the world in addressing climate change. But he also highlighted the need to move even faster in the next decade. Having closed its major coal fired power stations, the major challenge for the UK is decarbonising buildings. Chris noted that energy efficiency strategies, covering measures like insulation and double glazing of buildings, are important, but…
“…the big gains in terms of emissions come from decarbonising heat supply to those buildings. This is a big cost, but in the long run it is worth it. My message here is we’ve got to get real about this. We have lots of ways in which we could do it, but until you start to knuckle down, particularly in making plans for the cities, where the big win is, it’s not going to happen.”
Business: decarbonising in a post-Covid world
Steve Williams suggested that the restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have made it easier for some businesses to meet their decarbonisation targets. With commuting and business travel at significantly lower levels during the height of the pandemic, many companies’ emissions fell dramatically. As Steve acknowledged, the question now is how to make sure that these gains are not lost in the longer term. Examples of good practice include committing to less business travel in future, electrifying car fleets and appointing corporate climate champions.
Chris added that the CCC, having longstanding experience of advising government on policy, is now increasingly providing advice to businesses on tackling climate change. Chris highlighted some of the issues business should be considering:
“Our primary advice to the business community is just start measuring. Think properly about the way in which you impact through emissions , and how exposed you are to the climate risks. And then think about the strategies you can use to push the national mission to net zero. As businesses do this, the policy environment should respond and go more quickly”
Final thoughts
Just four months on from COP26, the world looks very different today. There are now concerns that economic pressures could cause governments to backslide on their climate change commitments, especially with a looming energy crisisthreatening the cost of living. However, there have also been more positive developments.
Earlier this month, leaders from nearly 200 countries agreed to draw up a legally binding treaty on reducing plastic waste. This will not only have positive impacts on ocean and marine life; it will also make a difference on climate change. A 2019 study reported that the production and incineration of plastic produced more than 850 million tons of greenhouse gases – equivalent to 189 five-hundred-megawatt coal power plants.
The latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change has reiterated that global warming remains a threat to human wellbeing and the health of the planet. The report couldn’t be clearer about what’s at stake:
“Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
The Scottish Government published the fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) draft for consultation on the 10th November 2021. Titled ‘Scotland 2045’, the eagerly awaited document outlines Scotland’s strategic approach to planning and land use to 2045, coinciding with the government’s ambitious target of transitioning towards a net-zero society by the same year. Now combined with the Local Development Plans (LDPs), it is a critical publication that will inform future planning proposals for Scotland over the next quarter of a century.
A plan of four parts
NPF4 is an extensive planning framework and it is impossible to fully review the 130 page document in a short post. However, it is made up of four key parts:
A National Spatial Strategy which sets out the four fundamental overarching themes which future development will aim to reflect and achieve. This is a vision for the creation of sustainable, liveable, productive and distinctive places.
18National Developments of ‘national importance’ that are proposed to support the delivery of the spatial strategy across the country. These include developments such as a Central Scotland Green Network, Urban Mass/Rapid Transit Network and Island Hubs for Net-Zero
35 National Planning Policies for development and land use to be applied in the preparation of development plans, local place plans and development briefs; and for the determination of planning consents.
Delivering the Spatial Strategy through key delivery mechanisms such as aligning resources to targeting investment and an infrastructure first approach.
What does NPF4 include on climate change?
The transition towards a net-zero society through sustainable development is a cornerstone of the draft NPF4. In fact, the wider issues of climate change, decarbonisation, biodiversity loss and nature-based solutions are firmly rooted throughout many of the strategy’s policies.
Policy 2 is dedicated to climate change. It lays out a new requirement for all development proposals to give “significant weight“ to the Global Climate Emergency as planning authorities are to carefully consider every development’s future implications for the climate.
It states that all developments should be designed to minimise emissions in alignment with the national decarbonisation targets and that proposals that do generate significant emissions should not be supported, unless the applicant provides evidence that the level of emissions is the minimum that can be achieved.
Tom Arthur, Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, has highlighted the requirement of giving ‘significant weight’ to climate emissions as a crucial feature within the framework for facilitating future sustainable development.
There is an undoubted sense of prioritisation of the climate emergency within the draft NPF4, as well as recognition of the planning authorities’ role in reducing emissions that was not so evident in previous iterations.
However, the draft concept of ‘significant weight’ remains a loose term that could become open to uncertainty – especially with the wide variety of developments it will apply to in practice. Despite the draft NPF4 illustrating that evidence of minimum emissions is required in certain instances – such as carbon intensive proposals – it remains unclear what this translates to in more typical housing developments, for example.
A host of other policies are also relevant to climate. Policy 19 on green energy states that local development plans should “ensure that an area’s full potential for electricity and heat from renewable sources is achieved”, whilst all forms of renewable energy and low-carbon solutions should also be supported. This includes support for the extension and creation of new wind farms.
Another marked difference from previous iterations of the NPF is the inclusion of ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’ as a viable approach to low-carbon urban living. A key principle of Policy 7 on local living, it is mentioned 18 times throughout NPF4 – making it one of the most prominently used phrases in the document.
Nature and biodiversity loss
As well as acknowledging the climate emergency, the draft NPF4 is clear in its identification of a ‘nature crisis’ in Scotland that is being aggravated by urbanisation:
“Our approach to planning and development will also play a critical role in supporting nature restoration and recovery. Global declines in biodiversity are mirrored here in Scotland with urbanisation recognised as a key pressure. We will need to invest in nature-based solutions to mitigate climate change whilst also addressing biodiversity loss, so we can safeguard the natural systems on which our economy, health and wellbeing depend.“
Policy 3 is dedicated to promoting nature recovery, and again there is a heightened focus on this issue now compared to previous strategies. It states that development proposals should “facilitate biodiversity enhancement, nature recovery and nature restoration“, whilst the potential adverse impacts of development should be minimised as a priority.
Likewise, major development proposals or those where an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is needed should only be approved where it is concluded that the proposal “will conserve and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks within and adjacent to the site, so that they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention”.
Further areas of importance with regard to nature preservation include the use of ‘nature-based solutions’, which is used in accordance with the spatial strategies, several of the national developments and planning policies.
In some instances, specific examples of nature-based solutions are provided – such as the impressive Central Scotland Green Network national development, which includes a nature-network approach to water management with sustainable drainage solutions in Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, it could be argued that the draft lacks an abundance of smaller scale examples of nature-based solutions, in the practicalities of more routine planning developments.
Moreover, Policy 33 on soils aims to give peatlands greater protection and restoration. The draft states that development upon peatland and carbon rich soils should not be supported unless for meeting essential criteria, whilst “local development plans should actively protect locally, regionally, nationally and internationally valued soils“.
What’s next for NPF4?
The consultation period for NPF4 is well underway, with the Scottish Government inviting feedback and scrutiny on the document until 31st March 2022. The draft is subject to several parliamentary committees engaging with planning stakeholders and the general public.
Committees are encouraging demographic groups who do not typically engage with planning matters – such as young people and the elderly – to take part in NPF4, underlining the desire for more inclusive involvement in planning decision-making.
Following the declaration of a national climate emergency, the announcement of world-leading decarbonisation targets and the hosting of COP26 in Glasgow last November, NPF4 certainly provides a starting vision for how environmental targets will translate into action through planning.
Further reading: more on planning and the environment from The Knowledge Exchange blog:
Social infrastructure is a broad term which covers a range of services which meet the local and strategic needs of an area. It can defined in many different ways, depending on which reports you read, but definitions often include:
physical places, services and spaces like youth services, community health, recreation, green space and sport and education and outreach services;
community organisations, such as voluntary groups, charitable groups, neighbourhood fora, local business groups and social enterprises; and
the physical and social links between places and people, including digital infrastructure, and walking and cycling infrastructure.
While the definition is broad and sometimes disputed, one thing that is generally agreed on is that social infrastructure is a key part of joining up physical infrastructure with services and communities for the benefit of the people who live and work in an area. It is important for social cohesion and effective placemaking and for that reason it has been highlighted by many commentators as a key part of the levelling up agenda.
A cornerstone of public life in our towns and cities
Many commentators have emphasised the role of “informal” spaces, libraries, parks, recreational spaces and community hubs as being overlooked and undervalued in the wider discussions of services and provisions within local areas for many years.
It seemed there was a perception that many of the services covered by the collective term “social infrastructure” were considered to be “supplementary” to core services delivered at a local level, like social work, and while the work they did within the community was recognised as positive, often they were first in line for cuts to services.
However, in recent years, the wider intangible value that these spaces and communities which social infrastructure supports has become recognised. Social infrastructure plays a vital role in supporting disadvantaged and marginalised groups within communities, often providing links to key services and support for people who had previously had significant barriers to access. More broadly social infrastructure can help with preventative and early intervention, with policies and investment that can reduce the need for more intensive (and expensive) support later on.
It is now considered common practice that investment should maximise public or ‘social’ value – that is investments that deliver the best solutions to support the public good. In practice this means including wider non-financial considerations such as community wellbeing and environmental sustainability when making the business case, and prioritising and planning projects that achieve positive social value outcomes for the public.
Supporting inclusive growth, levelling up and the post pandemic recovery
Having poor social infrastructure has been found to contribute to the lack of inclusive growth and levels of low productivity for left behind communities. Even before the coronavirus pandemic The Inclusive Growth Commission called for investment not just in physical infrastructure in poorer communities but in the social infrastructure which ‘develops the capacities and capabilities of individuals, families and communities to participate more fully in society and economic growth’. The most deprived communities often have the worst social infrastructure, which can exacerbate already deep rooted inequalities around areas like wealth, health and race.
Eric Klinenberg’s Palaces for the People: How to Build a More Equal and United Society, published in 2018, highlights research that demonstrates how social infrastructure affects our personal and collective wellbeing, leading to safer, healthier, more tolerant and stable communities, and facilitates social capital – the connections made between people. As we seek to “level up” those communities left behind, and those most significantly impacted by the pandemic, building these connections and improving social capital will be an important tool to help communities develop.
Research from Frontier Economics, published in June 2021, found that for every £1m invested, there are likely to be economic and fiscal returns worth £3.2m, including a £0.7m boost in employment, training and skills opportunities for local residents. And the Centre for Progressive Policy has illustrated in their recent programme of work that investment in social infrastructure plays a vital role in increasing the “health and skill levels of more deprived sections of the population and reducing place-based inequalities in line with the government’s levelling up agenda,” as well as offering good value for money and significant productivity returns.
Final thoughts
High quality and inclusive social infrastructure and its wider role in the creation of socially cohesive and economically vibrant communities is key to a successful levelling up agenda. New investment in social infrastructure will not only help to level Britain up, it will also unlock creativity, innovation and other local resources that can help rebuild the economy and build in local resilience for the future.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like to read:
Artificial intelligence (AI) has come a long way since computer pioneer Alan Turing first considered the notion of ‘thinking machines’ in the 1950s. More than half a century later, advances such as natural language processing and translation, and facial recognition have taken AI out of the computer lab and onto our smartphones. Meanwhile, faster computers and large datasets have enabled machine learning, where a computer imitates the way that humans learn.
AI has already had important impacts on how we live and work: in healthcare, it’s helping to enhance diagnosis of disease; in financial services AI is being deployed to spot trends that can’t be easily picked up by conventional reporting methods; and in education, AI can provide learning, testing and feedback, with benefits both to students and teachers. And now, intelligent automation is being adopted by local government.
AI goes local
A decade of austerity has left local councils struggling to ‘do more with less’. The Covid-19 pandemic has presented additional challenges, but has also accelerated efforts by local government to find digital solutions.
AI offers local authorities the benefits of streamlining routine tasks and processes, freeing up staff to focus on higher value activities which deliver better services and outcomes to citizens. Intelligent automation could also have important economic impacts. IPPR has estimated that AI could save councils up to £6bn in social care costs.
When it comes to system and data updating, intelligent automation really comes into its own. From managing council tax payments to issuing parking permits, there are now digital solutions to the many task-driven processes that are such a major part of local government’s work.
Many local councils are also exploring the application of chatbots or virtual assistants. These technologies enable customer services to provide automated, human-like answers to frequently asked questions on subjects as varied as waste management, street lighting and anti-social behaviour. The time and cost savings from this kind of digital solution can be substantial. Newham Council in London deployed a multilingual chatbot to answer residents’ questions. Within six months, the technology had answered 10,000 questions, saved 84 hours of call time and generated cost savings of £40,000.
The challenges of AI in local government: getting it right
Earlier this year, a report from the Oxford Commission on AI and Good Governance identified the major challenges facing local authorities when considering AI.
Inaccurate or incomplete data can delay or derail an AI project, so it’s vital that data quality issues are addressed early on. The report highlighted a project where one local authority explored how predictive analytics might be used to help prioritize inspections of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Predictive analytics involves the use of historic data to predict new instances. But in this case the challenges of cleaning, processing and merging the data proved too intractable to produce successful predictions.
Another important step for local authorities is to clearly define the objectives of an AI project, providing a clear vision of the outcomes, while managing expectations among all affected stakeholders – especially senior managers. The report points to a successful project implemented by Manchester City Council which developed an integrated database that allowed them to automate record searches and build predictive tools. The project had a clearly stated aim of identifying troubled families to participate in the government’s payment-by-results programme. This approach gave the project a specific focus and an easily measurable assessment of success.
It’s also important for local councils and technology suppliers to work together, ensuring that suppliers are aware of local contexts, existing data and processes. At the same time, making full use of in-house expertise can help AI technologies work better in a local government setting. The Oxford Commission report explains that after the disappointing results from the previously mentioned HMOs project, in-house data scientists working in one of the participating local authorities developed their own solution.
Sometimes, councils will discover that AI is a good fit in some parts of their work, but doesn’t work in others. In 2019, Oxford City Council explored whether chatbots could help solve design problems in some of their services. The council found that, while waste and recycling enquiries could be easily handled by a chatbot, the complex nature of the planning service would have made it difficult to remove humans from the conversations taking place in this setting. That said, another council has found it possible to develop a chatbot for its planning applications.
At the same time, digitalisation is compelling councils to adjust to new ways of working, something discussed in a Local Government Association presentation by Aylesbury Vale District Council.
The future of AI in local government
Since we last looked at this subject, local government involvement in AI has increased. But there are still important governance and ethical arrangements to consider so that AI technologies in public services can achieve benefits that citizens can trust.
The Oxford Commission report set out a number of recommendations, including:
minimum mandatory data standards and dedicated resources for the maintenance of data quality;
minimum mandatory guidance for problem definition and project progress monitoring;
dedicated resources to ensure that local authorities can be intelligent consumers and capable developers of AI;
a platform to compile all relevant information about information technology projects in local authorities.
Final thoughts
Three years ago, MJ magazine described AI as a ‘game-changer’ for local government. The potential benefits are clear. AI can generate labour and cost savings, but also offers the promise of reducing carbon footprints and optimizing energy usage. But while residents may welcome greater efficiency in their local councils, many will have concerns about data privacy, digital inclusion and trust in the use of public data.
At its best, artificial intelligence will complement the services provided by local authorities, while ensuring that the all-important element of human intelligence remains at the heart of local government.
Further reading: more on digital from The Knowledge Exchange blog
The Knowledge Exchange Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.