The current governance paradigm for integrated urban infrastructure planning in the metropolitan areas of Addis Ababa and Sheger

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5171799/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The current governance paradigm for integrated urban infrastructure planning in the metropolitan areas of Addis Ababa and Sheger

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5171799/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Major actors must organize their activities and resources through systems and procedures known as urban governance in order to utilize economic, social, and environmental resources for the benefit of the urban common good. The challenges and implications of metropolitan governance in the context of integrated infrastructure planning within city the regions are the focus of this study. The study examines the institutional, spatial, financial, and governance challenge related aspects of metropolitan regions through surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions that involve stakeholders. Significant voids in formal governance structures, coordination mechanisms, and stakeholder collaboration were identified in the two cities under investigation. Effective municipal governance has been impeded by obstacles such as administrative issues, boundary disputes, and insufficient resource allocation. The federal government's role in providing support, resources, and frameworks to address metropolitan issues is acknowledged, despite these challenges. The study emphasized the significance of proactive strategies, collaboration, and policy interventions in order to improve metropolitan governance and facilitate integrated infrastructure planning for sustainable urban development.

Urban Studies

metropolitan

city - regions

governance

model

cross – border

integration

planning

infrastructure

Major actors must organize their activities and resources through systems and procedures known as urban governance in order to utilize economic, social, and environmental resources for the benefit of the urban common good [1–4]. The contextual actuality of the structure and systematization of governing mechanisms is reflected in this concept of governance, which was developed and originated in Western countries [5–8]. It encompasses all the procedures for governing in an organized society through laws, norms, power, or language. The administrative and decision-making framework[9] that encompasses the administration of a metropolitan area, typically comprising a central city and its surrounding suburbs and exurbs, is referred to as metropolitan governance by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [9–13]. It entails the coordination of policies, services, and infrastructure across numerous local governments in the metropolitan region[14, 15]. It denotes the arrangements that enable multiple municipalities and potentially other levels of government to collaborate on decision-making and service provision within a metropolitan area [14, 16–18]. It encompasses mechanisms for the coordination of policies, the management of common resources and infrastructure, and the resolution of shared challenges, including transportation, housing, and economic development [16–18]. The two metropolitan regions are the subject of urban governance in this article.

A state border creates a unique geographical situation in cross-border metropolitan areas because it serves as both an interface and a barrier [19–22].This is because the border acts as both a metropolitan node connected to world networks and a barrier [19–22]. Many studies relating to metropolitan governance have shown the difficulty of building institutional territories of cooperation [23–26]. One of the reasons is that the types of cooperation, when they exist, often take place within narrow parameters that only include part of the metropolitan region and are not adjusted to its functional space[27–29].

"Spatial integration" is a term that is frequently employed to characterize the interactions between a variety of territories, including those that are international[30–32], interregional[33–35], between cities[36], or intra-metropolitan[35, 37].

In the global context, particularly in Europe, the opening of borders presents an opportunity for cities to capitalize on the favorable effects that they represent for businesses and workers and capitalize on the border differentials [38–41]. The cross-border metropolitan space that emerges as a consequence of this can serve as evidence of a functional integration that transcends the border [19, 20, 42–44]. Numerous scholars have elucidated the advantages of integrating metropolitan governance across borders. For example,[45, 46] [47] posits that cross-border interactions can promote economic growth, enable economies of scale, facilitate specialization, and allocate resources efficiently, thereby improving productivity and competitiveness. It has the potential to result in the more effective delivery of public services, including transportation, infrastructure, and environmental management [48–50]. While addressing common challenges encountered by metropolitan areas, shared resources and expertise can reduce duplication of efforts and costs [48–50]. It can improve the quality of life for residents by offering them access to a broader selection of cultural opportunities, services, and amenities [51–53]. Metropolitan life can be enhanced and social cohesion can be fostered through shared initiatives in areas such as healthcare, education, and cultural exchange [54–56]. It also facilitates the creation and execution of sustainable policies and initiatives that aim to protect natural resources and reduce environmental hazards [57–59].

Although metropolitan governance offers numerous advantages, it is confronted with numerous obstacles. The provision of effective coordination across municipal bodies to enhance the city's well-being is a significant challenge for metropolitan governance, as per [60–62]. The paper argues that these issues are primarily resolved through legal, institutional, managerial, and cooperation arrangements [63, 64]. Similar to the European metropolitan communities, Addis Ababa and Sheger may be held accountable for these circumstances. The urban-urban linkage is unplanned. In the studied area, national highways are the sole means of economic, social, and transportation connectivity. The urbanization process is primarily concentrated along roads that lack gaps, which complicates the distinction between urban and rural areas.

The expansion of the urban population has presented significant obstacles for municipal governments in both developed and underdeveloped nations, including income polarization, deteriorating infrastructure, violence and crime, transportation congestion, and air and water pollution [20]. The problems that these outdated institutional and territorial structures caused, the manner in which cities are governed, and the need for new ways of reasoning, planning, and making decisions necessitated improved coordination between these new ways of operating and the traditional methods of doing so. Consequently, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the current urban infrastructure governance model that is implemented in these metropolitan areas. Additionally, the study identified prospective urban infrastructure governance models that could improve the integration and collaboration of the study area.

2.1 Study area

Ethiopia's capital metropolis, Addis Ababa, was founded by Emperor Minilik in 1889 [65, 66].The city's development was primarily guided by the spontaneous city growth model, as it was organically developed without formal city planning practices and possesses rugged topography[67, 68]. Addis Ababa is the capital metropolis of the country and is also the location of numerous international organizations, embassies, the African Union (AU), and the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA)[69, 70]. Formal urban planning practices founded on western traditions were only introduced in Addis Ababa after the Italian occupation in 1935. Addis Ababa experiences a subtropical highland climate with an average high temperature of approximately 23°C and an average low temperature of 11°C that remains consistent throughout the year. Kiremt, the primary rainy season, spans from June to early October. Additionally, there is a brief period of rainfall known as Belg, which occurs between early March and mid-April. Nearly 80% of the annual precipitation occurs during the primary rainy season, with an average of approximately 1,200 mm.

Addis Ababa is one of Ethiopia's two self-governing chartered cities, and it is classified as a special autonomous region within the national federal government system. The Council is responsible to both the federal government and the municipal voters.

Addis Ababa has emerged as one of the most rapidly expanding cities in Africa in recent years [71]. Although this population growth initially stimulates an economic expansion, it ultimately poses obstacles[72]. Addis Ababa is over ten times the size of Ethiopia's second-largest city, Adama, with an estimated population of 5.3 million[73, 74]. In this regard, it is an extreme illustration of the economic dynamism and high demographic concentration that are characteristic of low-income country capitals[74]. Several inner-city renewal projects have been in progress since 2008, resulting in the demolition of substantial portions of the inner city and the displacement of their previous inhabitants [75].

A primate city in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa is one of the fastest-growing cities in Africa. It is estimated to have a population of approximately five million, which is approximately 25% of the country's total urban population and more than ten times the size of Adama, the second-largest urban center [74]. Addis Ababa, Africa's diplomatic hub, is the location of numerous international organizations, such as the African Union (AU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) [69, 70]. Numerous individuals flock to the city in quest of employment opportunities and services due to its strategic location and elevated status. Rural-urban migration accounts for approximately forty percent of the city's annual growth rate, which ranges from two to four percent. The infant mortality rate is 50 per 1000 live births, and the life expectancy at birth is 66 years [76, 77].

Sheger City, a proposed urban development model, was established on October 22, 2022, to provide economic benefits and influence to other satellite communities by encircling Addis Ababa. The administration is situated in the Saris area of Addis Ababa and is comprised of 12 sub-cities, 36 districts, and 40 rural kebeles. Figure 1 presents Location map of the study area.

2.2 Research design and approaches

The study employed a combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, as well as both descriptive and explanatory research designs, to investigate the governance of urban infrastructure planning in the studied areas, [78, 79]. The assets of both quantitative and qualitative data and analysis are combined in this strategy, which combines predetermined and emerging approaches[80]. In an effort to render a thorough examination of the research issue and to demonstrate the inconsistencies or similarities between the findings, the researcher integrated both quantitative and qualitative data [81]and [82].

We selected the mixed-methods approach to provide a more detailed analysis of the initial quantitative findings by utilizing qualitative data. Furthermore, we employed both quantitative and qualitative data collection, analysis, and integration to comprehend the integrated urban infrastructure planning system of the study area [81]and[82].

Moreover, purposive sampling was implemented to identify the three case study sites: Burayu (now Burayu sub-city), Gelan (now Galan sub-city), and Sebeta (now divided into two sub-cities, with the Furi sub-city being selected for this paper). On the basis of their distinctive spatial and physical development characteristics, we selected these communities. The research was particularly concerned with the examination of the current urban infrastructure planning governance for solid waste management, sewerage and drainage systems, and transport and road networks.

Quantitative and qualitative data were implemented in this investigation. The quantitative analysis was conducted using primary and secondary data from Addis Ababa and Sheger City (Burayu subcity, Galan subcity, and Furi subcity). Additionally, we conducted interviews with professionals, officials, and residents who were critical informants.

2.4 Data sources

Data for this investigation was obtained from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data was collected through the utilization of a variety of tools and methodologies. The objective was to collect data from a representative sample of professionals in a variety of disciplines by distributing questionnaires to experts in specific sectors. Key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with a variety of professionals and officials to acquire a comprehensive understanding. We also conducted field observations and focus group discussions (FGDs) to improve the data sources and collect more comprehensive information.

Secondary data were gathered from books, review articles, research findings, and both published and unpublished reports. These sources were employed to further enhance and compare the primary data.

2.5 Sampling techniques and sample size determination

This investigation implemented both probability and non-probability sampling methodologies. The sampling procedure was based on the total population, with the number of experts in these sectors of the study areas serving as the foundation. Using purposive sampling techniques, we selected the experts from each sector based on their educational level and experience.

The data from 257 experts was collected using non-probability sampling in the current study. The sampling frame for this method was the entire population of experts. We employed purposive sampling techniques to identify experts from each sector based on their educational background and level of experience, thereby guaranteeing that we acquired an adequate amount of information regarding the integrated infrastructure planning in the region. Table 1 presents Number of FGDs conducted in Addis Ababa and in selected sub cities in Sheger city.

Table 1

Number of FGDs conducted in Addis Ababa and in selected sub cities in Sheger city
No	Sub city	No. of FGD	Participant per FGD	Total number of participants
1	Addis Ababa city	2	10	20
2	Sabata/Furi sub city	1	9	9
3	Gelan sub city	1	8	8
4	Burayu sub city	1	10	10
	Total	6	-	47
(Source): FGDs survey, March, 2023

The number of respondents/participants from different sectors is shown in Table 2

Table 2

socio-economic description of the respondents/participants
No	Sectors	Study Areas				Total
No	Sectors	Addis Ababa	Burayu	Galan	Sabata/Furi	Total
1	Water and Sanitation Authority	18	11	11	11	51
2	Road Authority	36	11	11	11	69
3	Transport sector	15	12	12	13	52
4	Plan and Development Bureau	35	-	-	-	35
5	Municipality	14	12	12	12	50
	Total	118	46	46	47	257
(Source): Expertise survey, March, 2023

2.6 Data collection methods

We gathered both qualitative and quantitative data through interviews, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions to achieve the study's objective [83]. Therefore, we conducted interviews with officials and professionals. We recorded the conversations with permission using an audio recorder. We conducted most of the conversations on-site.

Furthermore, we employed extensive participant observations, as [83] did during his data collection, to capture typologies of development on the ground and modalities of the infrastructure. We captured these through photographs, note-taking, and typo morphological` mapping. We prepared both closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires for the respondents. We used the questionnaire to gather information from the offices of various infrastructure providers.

2.7 Data analysis

We employed both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to analyze the data obtained through interviews, questionnaires, observations, and focus group discussions [34]. We processed, coded, classified, and entered quantitative data from closed-ended questionnaires into a computer for analysis using software such as Microsoft Excel, AutoCAD, ArcGIS, and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 22.

In a non-numerical format, we analyzed and presented qualitative data, which encompassed words, ideas, expressions, and phrases, obtained from interviews, open-ended questionnaires, and field observations [84]. Initially, we converted these data into text and subsequently categorized them according to the frequency of ideas. Subsequently, we reorganized them into more extensive themes and conducted content analysis.

In order to interpret the numerical data collected from the questionnaires, we implemented descriptive and inferential statistics. In order to characterize, present, and interpret the distribution of various variables and their relationships, we employed statistical techniques such as frequency distribution, tests of proportions, measures of central tendency and dispersion, and correlation [84]. Subsequent statistical analyses were conducted using each classified response category as a variable in SPSS.

2.8 Data presentation

The analyzed data is presented in tables, graphs, charts, and percentages. Besides, GIS and CAD figures and field survey photos have been incorporated.

2.9 Quality assurance

To ensure the quality of the research instruments, the questionnaires were carefully prepared and reviewed by all authors [85]. We conducted pilot tests in each sub-city to evaluate the suitability of the questions designed for KIIs, FGDs, and questionnaires. We revised and refined the questions based on the feedback and gaps identified during the pilot tests.

We deployed and trained ten enumerators, all possessing first-degree degrees and a relevant educational background in the subject matter. The researchers provided them with training on data collection techniques and the various issues covered in the questionnaires. The researchers closely supervised the data collectors to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the collected data.

The enumerators encoded and analyzed all the collected data into the SPSS software. To maintain consistency and control over the caliber of the data gathered, the researcher conducted the FGDs and KIIs alone.

3.1 Institutional integration

"Metropolitan governance" denotes the frameworks that enable multiple municipalities and potentially other levels of government to collaborate in the provision of services and decision-making within a metropolitan area. It encompasses mechanisms for the coordination of policies, the management of common resources and infrastructure, and the resolution of shared challenges, including transportation, housing, and economic development [86, 87].

[

51 experts participated in the questionnaire filling procedure, irrespective of the governance of the city region. 17.6% of the experts expressed agreement with the existence of formal metropolitan governance in coordinating integrated infrastructure planning in the region in response to the query. Although 78.43% of respondents affirm that there is no formal metropolitan governance in the region, this suggests that there is no formal body or institution that coordinates the two cities to plan and provide integrated infrastructure.

[

The results of the current analysis are not consistent with those of [86, 87]in 21 countries, spanning 263 metropolitan areas. The OECD survey specifies four metropolitan governance models; however, the current study indicates that there is a dearth of formal metropolitan governance that coordinates city regions for integrated infrastructure planning. This absence was verified through interviews with city leaders. The OECD article emphasizes the experiences of a variety of countries, indicating that formal metropolitan governance has been developed in both federal and unitary systems to integrate city regions. This suggests that formal metropolitan governance is necessary in both systems to facilitate regional integration.

Consequently, the present investigation identified a substantial disparity in comparison to the OECD survey from [87]. The present study identified a lack of formal structures for coordinating city regions, whereas the OECD survey identified four models of metropolitan governance across various countries. This absence was verified through interviews with city leaders. Drawing on the experiences of countries such as the United Kingdom, Finland, Portugal, Mexico, and Australia, the article emphasizes the importance of formal metropolitan governance in both federal and unitary systems to effectively integrate city regions[88–90]. Consequently, the current investigation underscored the necessity of establishing formal structures for regional coordination and integrated infrastructure planning, as it identified a critical void in metropolitan governance in the study areas.

The current investigation poses the inquiry, "In the absence of formal metropolitan governance, does any informal organization, institution, or arrangement coordinate a variety of activities in the regions?" Consequently, 74.5% of the respondents declined, while 23.5% responded in the affirmative. Additionally, the interviews and focus group discussions with city leaders who participated in the study revealed that they establish and manage a temporary joint committee in response to joint federal government agendas, sporadic or seasonal security events, and a variety of common issues. Nevertheless, the study's results indicated that the institutions in both cities continue to operate independently on issues such as water and transportation, which are functionally interconnected.

The aforementioned analysis has shown that there is no informal coordination between the two cities' involvement in a variety of activities. Multiple metropolitan governance models exist, but there is no consensus on a single formula, as per [91, 92]. Nevertheless, [91, 92] differentiates four primary metropolitan governance models according to their institutionalization level. In an article captioned, the four governance models that pertain to this matter are informal self-coordination, inter-municipal authorities, supra-municipal authorities, and special status cities. There are four distinct models, each with its own legal frameworks, institutional structures, cooperation mechanisms, and service delivery systems.

Informal or self-coordination is a result of polycentric urban development, and it is legally regulated by an agreement between participating municipalities and other local stakeholders [93–96]. Nevertheless, do urban areas employ one or a combination of them in accordance with their unique requirements and preferences? Diverse governance models, including informal self-coordination, inter-municipal authorities, special status cities, and inter-municipal authorities, are available to resolve these coordination challenges, as the article observes, as proven by the experiences of various countries[97–99]. Nevertheless, the precise components or combinations of these models that the localities employ in the study areas are still uncertain. In general, informal arrangements do not facilitate the coordination of a variety of activities that involve both communities. The presence of formal or informal institutions summarized in Table 3

Table 3

the presence of formal or informal institutions
No	Issues	Frequency	Percentage
1	Infrastructure management	5	9.6
2	project coordination and resource mobilization	4	6.8
3	infrastructure maintenance	2	3.9
4	collaboratively creating an integrated infrastructure plan	27	52.9
(Source): Expertise survey, March, 2023

The presence of formal or informal institutions demonstrated in Fig. 2.

The current study posed the inquiry, "Who would bear primary responsibility for the available options in this domain, and should we establish formal or informal establishments or agreements?" The responses included infrastructure management (9.6%), project coordination and resource mobilization (6.8%), infrastructure maintenance (3.9%), and collaboratively creating an integrated infrastructure plan (52.9%). The response makes it clear that metropolitan governance is in charge of creating a collaborative integrated infrastructure plan using the options provided. Various scholars have revealed the primary functions of integrated institutions in coordinating urban areas. According to [100–102], formal organizations such as city councils or municipal governments are usually in charge of creating laws and policies that control many aspects of city life, such as housing, transportation, urban planning, and economic growth.

Conversely, informal institutions might affect policy through community involvement initiatives or networks of influence [103, 104]. Only a few of the necessities that are frequently under official agencies' supervision are public transportation, energy, water, and sanitation. According to Pierre and Peters [103, 104], institutions could support these efforts informally through community-based programs or unofficial networks for service delivery. Formal institutions usually plan and carry out big infrastructure projects like utilities, roads, and bridges [105, 106], [103, 104], and [107]. Informal institutions can aid in the development of infrastructure by supporting neighborhood-based projects or utilizing available resources and knowledge [104, 108]. In order to involve communities and encourage citizen engagement in decision-making processes, both official and informal institutions are necessary.

Official institutions could organize town hall meetings, public hearings, or advisory committees to get feedback from locals [109], [110], and [107]. Informal institutions like neighborhood associations or advocacy groups can also mobilize community members and advocate for their interests. Formal institutions such as courts or regulatory agencies frequently serve as dispute resolution methods in city-regions [109], [110], and [107]

Informal dispute resolution procedures or community-based mediation processes may also be used by informal institutions to resolve conflicts [110]. Within city regions, formal entities are in charge of budget development and resource allocation for a range of services and programs. During the budgeting process, informal institutions may advocate for specific goals or influence resource allocation decisions [107].

In response to the question of whether metropolitan governance practices exist in the research region, 74.5% of respondents said they do not, and 17.6% said that they do. This implies that neither of the two cities is implementing the concept of inclusive metropolitan governance. According to [111, 112], management unites governmental agencies, community organizations, the commercial sector, and other organizations to deliver integrated development to the region while defining metropolitan governance. Therefore, in order to effectively develop the infrastructure that connects these locations, governance is a crucial concern.

The findings suggested that there is a lack of implementation of all-inclusive metropolitan governance practices. Only a small proportion (17.6%) reported the existence of such practices, while the majority (74.5%) indicated otherwise. This demonstrated the significance of governance in promoting integrated infrastructure development, as [113] highlighted. Effective governance, which involves collaboration among government institutions, civic associations, the private sector, and other stakeholders, is crucial for planning infrastructure that connects different areas within the metropolitan region.

3.2 Spatial integration

In terms of the potential for coordinating responsibilities to encompass service delivery, 80.4% of respondents agreed, while 19.6% disagreed. This is one of the most significant issues that urban areas are currently confronting in terms of service delivery, and the federal government must give it additional consideration. Not only must cities collaborate, but they must also collaborate to resolve the challenges they face in the provision of services. This is a claim made by Slack [14]

“The jurisdiction that provides the service does not necessarily have to be the one that consumes it. The producing jurisdiction, for example, could sell output to consumers in adjacent jurisdictions. In this way, the producing jurisdiction could benefit from economies of scale in production without having to be part of a larger jurisdiction, that is, without requiring the larger population to be located within its own boundaries. Thus, a larger government jurisdiction is not necessary to achieve economies of scale because the demand and supply of local government services can be separated. Economies of scale can thus be achieved even in a fragmented government system through inter-municipal cooperation or through the creation of special districts to deliver services.” [14]

The theoretical argument that underpins this perspective is predicated on intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. In order to effectively address complex urban challenges, such as service delivery, effective urban governance necessitates the coordination of multiple actors, including local governments, federal agencies, and civil society organizations, as per scholars such as [114–116]. In order to guarantee that urban residents have both efficient and equitable access to essential services, it is imperative that service delivery duties be coordinated across sectors and jurisdictions.

Improved coordination mechanisms and collaboration frameworks are required to enhance service delivery in urban areas, as the results of the study have demonstrated. In order to foster effective collaboration and resource sharing among cities and government agencies, policymakers can develop strategies and policies that recognize the challenges and opportunities presented by intergovernmental coordination. The significance of coordination and collaboration among jurisdictions to effectively address service delivery challenges in urban areas was also emphasized by the findings. The study also emphasized the potential advantages of inter-municipal cooperation and special districts in reaching economies of scale in service provision within fragmented government systems.

In summary, the theoretical argument and empirical findings underscored the significance of intergovernmental coordination in addressing service delivery challenges in urban areas. It is imperative to improve service provision and improve the quality of life for urban residents through collaborative efforts that are supported by effective governance structures and policies. Regardless of the role civil society plays in inter-jurisdictional coordination, 80.4% participated in planning, 3.9% participated in the imminent committee, 3.9% mobilized resources, and 3.9% provided consultation. The response serves as an illustration that civil society is needed to engage in the planning process. The interview and focus group discussion also underscored the critical role that civil society can play in resource mobilization and consultation. Numerous papers further reveal that civil society's obligations are not limited to this and that they are a significant factor in the collaboration of metropolitan governance from this perspective. [117] propose that civil society can make a substantial impact by engaging in a diverse array of activities.

The critical role that civil society plays in inter-jurisdictional coordination and metropolitan governance is underscored by its substantial involvement in planning processes, resource mobilization and consultation. This is consistent with theoretical arguments that underscore the significance of civil society's active participation in governance processes [117].

Civil society, which includes advocacy organizations, community groups, and non-governmental organizations, serves as a vital intermediary between the public and government entities in the context of governance. Civil society organizations have the potential to enhance accountability, cultivate transparency, and facilitate collaboration within governance structures, as per theorists such as [118] and [119]. They offer valuable perspectives, expertise, and input that enhance decision-making processes and guarantee the inclusivity of governance initiatives.

The results indicate that civil society's participation in resource mobilization, consultation, and planning is crucial for the successful coordination of inter-jurisdictional activities and metropolitan governance. Policymakers and urban planners should acknowledge the contributions of civil society and establish mechanisms to encourage their involvement in governance processes. Incorporating civil society input into decision-making frameworks, providing funding and support for civil society initiatives, and establishing platforms for dialogue are all part of this.

In summary, the active participation of civil society in governance processes is essential for the resolution of complex urban challenges, the promotion of transparency, and the enhancement of collaboration. Policymakers can promote sustainable urban development and an enhanced quality of life for residents by recognizing and utilizing the potential of civil society to establish more inclusive and participatory governance structures.

Similar to civil society, the private sector plays a role in the integration of urban regions. The private sector's role was as follows, according to this perspective: For example, 11.8% of the total is allocated to the development and maintenance of service facilities and infrastructure, the advancement and expansion of existing enterprises, the resolution of inefficiencies in the regional economy, and the promotion and assistance of community development. The response provided illustrates that the private sector's primary obligations encompass infrastructure development and maintenance, investment, and service facility management.

The private sector plays a significant role in the integration of city regions, as it supports the endeavors of civil society and government entities. Theoretical arguments substantiate the notion that the private sector is essential for urban development and governance, particularly in the areas of investment, infrastructure development, and community development [120] and [121].

The private sector's role in propelling economic growth, creating employment opportunities, and fostering innovation is underscored by economic theories, including those proposed by Smith [120] and [121]. The economic development of city regions is facilitated by the private sector's participation in infrastructure development, service facility administration, and investment activities. Furthermore, the private sector's role in addressing inefficiencies in the regional economy and fostering community development is consistent with the concepts of social responsibility and market efficiency.

The results indicate that sustainable urban development and integrated city regions necessitate the utilization of the private sector's resources and capabilities. Through regulatory frameworks, incentives, and public-private partnerships, urban planners and policymakers should establish an environment that fosters private sector involvement. Greater efficiency and effectiveness can be achieved by fostering collaboration among government entities, civil society, and the private sector in pursuit of urban challenges.

In summary, the private sector's involvement in the integration of city regions is multifaceted, comprising investment, infrastructure development, and community development. The significance of utilizing the private sector's potential to address urban inefficiencies, enhance infrastructure, and drive economic development is underscored by theoretical perspectives. Cities can accomplish sustainable and holistic development that is beneficial to both residents and businesses by promoting partnerships and collaboration with the private sector. the role of private sector in metropolitan governance is detailed in Table 4.

Table 4

the role of private sector in metropolitan governance
No	Issues	Frequency	Percentage
1	creating and maintaining service facilities and infrastructure	17	33.3
2	making investments	17	33.3
3	advancing and growing already-existing enterprises	6	11.8
4	resolving inefficiencies in the regional economy, and promoting and aiding in community development make up	6	11.8
Source(s): Expertise survey, 2023

The role of private sector in metropolitan governance shown below in Fig. 3

The focus group discussions and interviews from this perspective asserted that the private sector's role in the study area is not particularly prominent. They argued that the private sector finds participation in these services unfeasible, necessitates significant investment, and generates long-term returns, which is the primary reason for this lack of visibility. Consequently, it will be imperative to enhance the private sector's capacity and establish a variety of incentive mechanisms to engage them in the resolution of the issue.

Border conflict (31.4%), illegality (31.4%), and border cooperation (31.4%) are all identified as issues in the investigation. As is widely recognized, the objective of border area coordination is to establish connections between regions with dissimilar borders. This has the advantage of enabling the unrestricted flow of capital, individuals, goods, and services. However, the coordination of peripheral areas is characterized by distinctive challenges, as demonstrated in [38]. It is evident from the responses that coordination challenges are equally present in all three options. This and other coordination-related issues were extensively discussed during the focus group. Consequently, we predict that the communities will improve coordination by leveraging the current challenges to their advantage and emphasizing its significance.

The current investigation identified three primary obstacles to border area cooperation: border conflict, illegality, and general issues with cooperation. The complexity of coordinating efforts across disparate borders was indicated by the equal acknowledgment of each challenge by respondents. The primary objective of border area coordination is to facilitate the unrestricted movement of capital, people, products, and services by connecting regions with distinct borders. The objective is to encourage economic integration and development in border regions. As emphasized by [122], border area coordination presents distinctive challenges. Addressing challenges such as border conflicts, illegality, and general issues remains a significant concern, despite the acknowledged significance of coordination. Through extensive focus group discussions, we expect that cities will capitalize on current challenges and emphasize the significance of coordination. This implies a proactive strategy for overcoming obstacles and promoting improved collaboration in border regions.

The majority of respondents (60.78%) believed that integrated infrastructure planning has an impact on administrative boundaries, while 35.3 percent believed that it has no influence. Administrative boundaries are influenced by the most integrated infrastructure design, according to the survey experts' responses. Administrative and planning boundaries are evidently distinct. The planning border is defined by the road system, other social amenities, and institutions that are shared by the two cities. It is inevitable that conflicts and disagreements regarding administrative borders will arise when these infrastructures are employed. Socioeconomic interactions are more prevalent within functional urban areas than they are outside of them, as evidenced by administrative boundaries [123, 124]. This is the relationship between administrative boundaries and planning boundaries. We anticipated that the cities will work together to promote integrated development in the region, as they share a common understanding of the natural impact.

The study posited that socioeconomic interactions are more robust within planning boundaries than across administrative borders, emphasizing the interdependence of planning and administrative boundaries in the promotion of integrated development and cooperation. Given the inherent influence of integrated infrastructure planning on administrative boundaries, we anticipate that cities will collaborate to accomplish integrated growth in the region. This implies acknowledgment of the significance of collaboration in overcoming the obstacles presented by overlapping boundaries and promoting regional development.

3.3 Financial integration

As prospective sources of financing, the respondents propose domestic investors (11%), public utilities (3.9%), dedicated government funds (81%), and banks and other financial institutions (3.9%) in relation to financial integration. In conclusion, the respondents stated that the government is the primary source of funds for financial coordination, although investors can also provide financing. This implies that the significance of other financial institutions and banks may fluctuate. It is evident that the financial sector and banks play a substantial role in this situation when the experiences of other countries are examined.

Economic theories, particularly those that pertain to public finance and investment, prioritize finance's contribution to urban development. Government funds are a primary source of finance for urban initiatives, as they have the capacity to mobilize substantial amounts of capital for public infrastructure and services, as shown by theoretical arguments [125]. Furthermore, financial integration is facilitated by domestic investors and financial institutions, such as banks, which provide capital for private sector initiatives and public-private partnerships [126–128].

The results, which suggest that dedicated government funds are the primary source of finance for financial coordination, suggest the significance of public sector investment in urban development. Governments are instrumental in the allocation of resources, the financing of infrastructure projects, and the promotion of economic development through financial policies and initiatives [125, 129, 130]. The potential for collaboration between the public and private sectors to leverage additional funding and expertise for urban initiatives is suggested by the involvement of domestic investors and financial institutions.

In summary, the theoretical perspective on finance in urban development emphasizes the importance of government funds, domestic investors, and financial institutions in the financing of urban initiatives. The results are consistent with these theoretical considerations, emphasizing the importance of government-led financial coordination while also acknowledging the contributions of private sector stakeholders. In order to guarantee sustainable and inclusive urban development, policymakers and urban planners should emphasize the importance of effective financial management, public-private partnerships, and regulatory frameworks.

The results indicate that government allocations and dedicated funds are the primary source of financial integration for infrastructure projects, as indicated by 81% of respondents. Domestic investors are a secondary potential source, which is represented at 11%. This emphasizes the significance of government funding in enabling the coordination of financial resources for the development of integrated infrastructure. Nevertheless, the responses did not consider banks and other financial institutions to be significant contributors, which is consistent with the experiences of other countries where governments and dedicated funds play a central role in infrastructure financing [131, 132].

Consequently, it is crucial for cities to establish distinctive strategies and initiatives in this area. The query of whether the cities collaborate to implement integrated infrastructure was answered affirmatively by 11.8% and negatively by 82.35%. This response indicates that sectoral coordination is almost nonexistent.

A fundamental component of urban governance theories is the coordination of sectors to implement integrated infrastructure coordination. Effective coordination among a variety of sectors, including transportation, housing, utilities, and public services, is fundamental for the comprehensive development of urban areas, according to theoretical arguments [133, 134]. Fragmented development, duplication of efforts, and inefficiencies in resource allocation can be the outcome of a failure to coordinate sectors [64, 135, 136].

The results, which suggested a low level of coordination among sectors for integrated infrastructure coordination, have substantial implications. They indicate that there is a dearth of cohesive urban planning strategies and collaborative endeavors among critical stakeholders, such as government agencies, private enterprises, and civil society organizations. Suboptimal outcomes in infrastructure development, service delivery, and overall urban quality of life may result from this lack of coordination.

In summary, the theoretical perspective on sector coordination underscores the significance of integrated urban governance approaches. The results emphasized the necessity for cities to develop and execute strategies that foster cross-sectoral collaboration, information exchange, and joint decision-making processes [137, 138]. In order to accomplish sustainable and inclusive urban development objectives, stakeholders, urban planners, and policymakers must prioritize the improvement of sectoral coordination mechanisms.

The respondent's assessment is that there is a 23.6% lack of attention, a 60.78% lack of legal framework, a 5.9% lack of police support, and a 5.9% mutual suspicion. The legal framework and police measures are still in the process of being prepared, according to the leaders and experts from the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction who were interviewed.

A robust legal framework and sufficient support from law enforcement agencies are essential for effective coordination in urban development. Urban sectors may experience uncoordinated growth and development as a result of a dearth of attention, coordination, and mutual suspicion in the absence of these. According to the opinions of respondents, key reasons for the lack of coordination include a lack of attention (23.6%), lack of legal framework (60.78%), lack of policy support (5.9%), and suspicion from both sides (5.9%). Leaders and experts from the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction also acknowledged the absence of a prepared legal framework and policy support, indicating ongoing efforts to address these issues.

The findings suggest that the uncoordinated nature of urban sectors significantly contributes to challenges in urban development. Lack of a legal framework and police support can lead to inefficiencies, conflicts, and hindered progress in urban planning and management.

Based on the theoretical argument and findings, it is imperative to prioritize the development of a comprehensive legal framework and provide necessary support to law enforcement agencies. This includes addressing issues of attention, coordination, and mutual suspicion among stakeholders. Such actions are crucial for promoting coordinated urban development, enhancing governance effectiveness, and fostering sustainable growth in urban areas.

When the respondents stated that there are institutions that try to work together in some cases in a fragmented manner, 92.2% said that their coordination is very weak and lax, while 7.8% indicated moderate or that they tried their best, but no one said anything or said that they were strong. Therefore, it is expected to follow the practices of others in this area.

Fragmented coordination among institutions can lead to weak and lax coordination, hindering effective collaboration and integration in urban development initiatives. Without strong coordination, synergies are lost, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal outcomes.

92.2% of institutions reported very weak and lax coordination as a result of their attempts to work together in a fragmented manner. 7.8% indicated that they were making moderate efforts or attempting their best, but no one reported strong coordination. This underscores the widespread problem of inadequate coordination among institutions involved in urban development.

The results indicate that it is imperative to address fragmented coordination practices in order to enhance the overall effectiveness of coordination and achieve superior results in urban development initiatives. In order to surmount the obstacles presented by inadequate coordination, institutions must implement strategies that foster enhanced communication, collaboration, and integration.

Institutions engaged in urban development must prioritize robust coordination practices in accordance with the theoretical argument and findings. Improving coordination strategies and attaining more impactful results can be facilitated by learning from others in the field who demonstrate effective coordination. Urban development endeavors can be rendered more efficient, synergistic, and conducive to sustainable growth by optimizing institutional coordination.

3.4 Challenges of metropolitan governance

64.7% of respondents identified challenges in metropolitan governance, while 35% indicated that there were no challenges at all. The interviews, focus group discussions, and questionnaires completed by the respondents indicate that metropolitan governance presents challenges for city regions. It is challenging to establish infrastructure that is well-managed, constructed, and administered in a manner that meets the accessibility, livability, and vibrancy needs of the urban system, as evidenced by the results of the current study [139–141]. This underscores the agreement among respondents and prior research that metropolitan governance impedes the effective administration of infrastructure and urban development.

The study's results suggested that stakeholders generally believe that metropolitan governance presents obstacles to city regions. The majority opinion, which is substantiated by a variety of sources of data, emphasizes the importance of addressing governance-related issues in urban management, despite the fact that a minority of respondents did not identify such challenges.

The alignment of these findings with existing research further solidifies the notion that managing urban infrastructure within the framework of metropolitan governance is a complex endeavor[142, 143]. It will be essential to address the identified challenges in order to guarantee the accessibility, viability, and vibrancy of urban systems.

In the future, policymakers and urban planners should implement the insights obtained from this study to develop strategies that are designed to alleviate the obstacles presented by metropolitan governance. The overall resilience and sustainability of city regions in the face of evolving urban dynamics can be improved by promoting collaboration, transparency, and effective decision-making processes within the governance framework. Table 5 presents the Challenges of metropolitan governance.

Table 5

the Challenges of metropolitan governance
No	Issues	Frequency	Percentage
1	boundary disputes	10	19.6
2	in efficient administrative systems	10	19.6
3	lack of a legal framework	26	51
4	insufficient resources	5	9.8
Source(s): Expertise survey, 2023

The Challenges of metropolitan governance summarized in Fig. 4

These challenges encompass the following: insufficient resources (5/9.8%), a lack of a legal framework (51%), efficient administrative systems (19.6%), and boundary disputes (19.6%). The results suggest that the absence of a legislative framework, administrative issues, and boundary disputes are the constraints imposed by the presence of metropolitan governance in the regions. In the same vein, the focal group discussion and the interviews conducted substantiate the aforementioned concepts; the remarks of the participants indicate that neither institutions nor ideas exist at this level. [91, 144] elucidate the perspective in their paper by asserting that these challenges are more severe in established metropolitan areas, such as European city regions.

In addition to the aforementioned concerns, the underlying factors are urban mobility, fundamental sanitation, and housing quality. The aforementioned alternative is known to contain additional issues, which cities are obligated to address. Some of the environmental issues that metropolitan areas frequently encounter and that extend beyond political borders include urban encroachment, air and water pollution, and climate change [145, 146].

The aforementioned discussion implies that the primary obstacles to effective municipal governance are the absence of a legislative framework, administrative issues, and boundary disputes. The efficient operation of urban areas is impeded by these constraints, which also exacerbate extant issues.

In order to confront these obstacles, the federal government could participate in the design or formulation of policies and strategies (47.1%), the provision of supervision (23.5%), the provision of incentives (17.6%), and the allocation of budgets (11.8%). The aforementioned response suggests that the federal government's primary responsibilities include the development of policies and strategies, their supervision, and the provision of incentives and budget allocations for governance. This is why it is essential for the federal government to conduct an adequate amount of work in this field. The federal government has not fulfilled its obligation to manage the challenges of metropolitan regions and has not relinquished its responsibility, despite the fact that this role is essential in addressing issues that frequently transcend local or regional boundaries. This was revealed in the focus group discussion and an interview with the leaders. Federal administrations can be instrumental in addressing the intricate challenges that metropolitan areas encounter by providing resources, establishing frameworks, and coordinating efforts.

For example, federal governments have the ability to allocate financing for infrastructure projects that are advantageous to metropolitan regions, such as transportation networks or environmental initiatives [14, 147]. Furthermore, they have the ability to create policies and regulations that address issues such as urban encroachment, air and water pollution, and climate change, which necessitate coordinated action across multiple jurisdictions [146, 148].

In addition, federal administrations have the ability to encourage collaboration among various levels of government, such as regional and local authorities, in order to create comprehensive strategies for addressing metropolitan challenges [111, 149]. The quality of life for residents can be enhanced by federal governments by providing guidance, technical assistance, and financial support to metropolitan regions, which can help them surmount governance constraints and implement effective solutions [150].

Conflict (35.2%), migration (29.4%), inequality (9.8%), and failure to provide adequate access to services (119.6%) are the opinions of respondents regarding the question "What are the challenges of urban governance?" They clarified that urban governance is confronted with numerous challenges by nearly every option that was presented during the focus group discussion. Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend the detrimental effects of these obstacles on the planning of integrated infrastructure and to resolve them by working against them.

4.1 Conclusion

The study concludes by elucidating the critical significance of metropolitan governance in the facilitation of integrated infrastructure planning and the resolution of the multifaceted challenges that are confronted within city regions. The necessity for proactive strategies and policy interventions was underscored by the identification of substantial voids in formal governance structures and coordination mechanisms through surveys, interviews, and focus group discussions.

Stakeholders acknowledge the importance of collaboration among municipalities, government agencies, civil society organizations, and the private sector to advance sustainable urban development, despite the absence of formal metropolitan governance. Nevertheless, effective governance and infrastructure planning are impeded by obstacles such as administrative issues, boundary disputes, and insufficient resource allocation.

The study underscores the critical role of the federal government in addressing metropolitan challenges and facilitating collaborative efforts by providing support, resources, and frameworks. Policy interventions and legal frameworks are also crucial in addressing governance constraints and fostering inclusive decision-making processes associated with integrated infrastructures.

Consequently, it is essential to establish formal metropolitan governance structures, fortify collaboration among stakeholders, create legal frameworks, and increase federal government support. Additionally, it is imperative to encourage community engagement and participation in order to guarantee inclusivity and responsiveness to local requirements.

4.2 Recommendations

Establish formal metropolitan governance structures. Establish formal mechanisms to address shared challenges, manage resources, and coordinate policies within city regions.
Enhance stakeholder collaboration: Promote the integration of infrastructure planning and service delivery by fostering collaboration among municipalities, government agencies, civil society organizations, and the private sector.
Develop legal frameworks and policy interventions: strive to establish legal frameworks and policies that address administrative concerns, boundary disputes, and other governance constraints.
Improve federal government support: advocate for increased federal government support in the areas of dispute resolution, funding, and technical assistance to address metropolitan challenges and promote sustainable urban development.
Encourage community engagement and participation: to guarantee inclusivity and responsiveness to local requirements, encourage community participation in infrastructure projects, planning initiatives, and decision-making processes.

Ultimately, the quality of life of residents and the cultivation of a vibrant community can be enhanced by the implementation of these recommendations, which will enable two cities to surmount governance obstacles and progress toward more integrated, resilient, and sustainable urban development and thriving communities.

Declarations of Statements

Ethics statement:

The need for ethical approval was waived off by the Addis Ababa University Gradate Committee because the study involved such things as the use of publicly available data, secondary data analysis, and minimal risk to participants, and the university has no such guidelines and regulations. The Addis Ababa University Gradate Committee granted this waiver in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, ensuring the research adhered to ethical standards. Also, Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author contribution statement

Geremew Worku:- design of the work; drafted the work; analysis, or interpretation of data; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Dagnachew Adugna:- design of the work; drafted the work; analysis, or interpretation of data; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved..

Ethics statement:

Author contribution statement

Funding statement

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work..

Data Availability Statement:

The datasets/DAS/ generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, [Geremew Worku], upon reasonable request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the research participants for their partaking of their insights, and the University for giving me a chance to join it.

Foster SR (2011) Collective action and the urban commons. Notre Dame L Rev 87:57
Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114
Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level–and effective? Environmental policy and governance, 19(3): pp. 197–214
Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34(1):253–278
Stokke OS (1997) Regimes as governance systems. Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience, : pp. 27–63
Andresani G, Ferlie E (2006) Studying governance within the British public sector and without: Theoretical and methodological issues. Public Manage Rev 8(3):415–431
Cooke PN, Heidenreich M, Braczyk H-J (2004) Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world. Psychology
Saltman RB, Bankauskaite V (2006) Conceptualizing decentralization in European health systems: a functional perspective. Health Econ Policy Law 1(2):127–147
Rakodi C (2003) Politics and performance: the implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems. Habitat Int 27(4):523–547
Rosan CD (2016) Governing the fragmented metropolis: Planning for regional sustainability. University of Pennsylvania
Choice G, Butt A (2020) Making regions: localisation and the new periphery in emerging regional governance. Australian Plan 56(2):114–124
Buxton M et al (2006) Change and continuity in peri-urban Australia, state of the peri-urban regions: a review of the literature. RMIT University, Melbourne
Yang J (2009) Spatial planning in Asia. Megaregions: Planning for global competitiveness, : pp. 35–52
Slack E (2007) Managing the coordination of service delivery in metropolitan cities: The role of metropolitan governance, vol 4317. World Bank
Trejo Nieto AB, Niño JL, Amezquita, Vasquez ML (2018) Governance of metropolitan areas for delivery of public services in Latin America. Region 5(3):49–73
Rayle L, Zegras C (2013) The emergence of inter-municipal collaboration: Evidence from metropolitan planning in Portugal. Eur Plan Stud 21(6):867–889
Castillo MF (2019) Beyond institutional collective action: Why and when do metropolitan governments collaborate? State Local Government Rev 51(3):197–209
Slack E (2019) Metropolitan Governance. Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy University of Toronto
Sohn C (2018) Cross-border regions. Handbook on the Geographies of Regions and Territories. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 298–310
Sohn C (2014) Modelling cross-border integration: The role of borders as a resource. Geopolitics 19(3):587–608
Herzog LA, Sohn C (2014) The cross-border metropolis in a global age: A conceptual model and empirical evidence from the US–Mexico and European border regions. Global Soc 28(4):441–461
Nelles J, Durand F (2014) Political rescaling and metropolitan governance in cross-border regions: comparing the cross-border metropolitan areas of Lille and Luxembourg. Eur Urban Reg Stud 21(1):104–122
Négrier E (2006) Rescaling French urban territories: State, local power and regional configurations in the building of new metropolitan institutions. Eur Plan Stud 14(7):939–958
Harrison J, Hoyler M (2014) Governing the new metropolis. SAGE Publications Sage UK, London, England, pp 2249–2266
Cardoso RV (2016) Overcoming barriers to institutional integration in European second-tier urban regions. Eur Plan Stud 24(12):2197–2216
Dong L, Kübler D (2021) Scale-building in the party-state: The governance of China’s metropolitan regions. Territory, politics, governance, 9(4): pp. 493–511
Markusen A (2017) Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts, in Economy. Routledge. pp. 177–197
Musterd S, Murie A (2011) Making competitive cities. Wiley
Robinson J (2011) Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. Int J Urban Reg Res 35(1):1–23
Storey D (2012) Territories: The claiming of space. Routledge
Gleditsch KS (2009) All international politics is local: The diffusion of conflict, integration, and democratization. University of Michigan Press
Zhang X et al (2022) Identification of metropolitan area boundaries based on comprehensive spatial linkages of cities: A case study of the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. ISPRS Int J Geo-Information 11(7):396
Sat NA (2018) Polycentricity in a developing world: A micro-regional analysis for morphological polycentricity in Turkey. GeoScape 12(2):64–75
Cuadrado-Roura JR (2020) Development, contributions and trends in regional studies in Spain: An overview. Papers Reg Sci 99(2):327–359
Kii M, Nakanishi H, Nakamura K, Doi K (2016) Transportation and spatial development: An overview and a future direction. Transp Policy 49:148–158
Musolino D, Pellegrino L (2024) Integration of twin cities: A Delphi investigation of the urban areas on both sides of the Strait of Messina. J Urban Affairs 46(4):864–886
Musolino D (2018) Characteristics and effects of twin cities integration: The case of Reggio Calabria and Messina,‘walled cities’ in Southern Italy, vol 10. Regional Science Policy & Practice, pp 315–334. 4
Sohn C (2020) Borders as resources: Towards a centring of the concept. A Research Agenda for Border Studies. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 71–88
Chen X (2005) As borders bend: transnational spaces on the Pacific Rim. Rowman & Littlefield
Stokan E, Deslatte A (2019) Beyond borders: Governmental fragmentation and the political market for growth in American cities. State Local Government Rev 51(3):150–167
Richardson KE (2017) Knowledge borders: Temporary labor mobility and the Canada–US border region. Edward Elgar Publishing
Sohn C (2014) The border as a resource in the global urban space: A contribution to the cross-border metropolis hypothesis. Int J Urban Reg Res 38(5):1697–1711
Durand F (2015) Theoretical framework of the cross-border space production–The case of the Eurometropolis Lille–Kortrijk–Tournai. J Borderlands Stud 30(3):309–328
Decoville A, Durand F, Sohn C (2021) Cross-border spatial planning in border cities: Unpacking the symbolic role of borders. Border cities and territorial development. Routledge, pp 39–56
Jessop B (2020) Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance, in The Confines of Territory. Routledge, pp 43–66
Harrison J, Growe A (2014) From places to flows? Planning for the new ‘regional world’in Germany. Eur Urban Reg Stud 21(1):21–41
McCann E (2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(1):107–130
Cuadrado-Ballesteros B, García-Sánchez I-M, Prado-Lorenzo J-M (2013) Effect of modes of public services delivery on the efficiency of local governments: A two-stage approach. Utilities Policy 26:23–35
Siemiatycki M (2009) Delivering transportation infrastructure through public-private partnerships: Planning concerns. J Am Plann Association 76(1):43–58
Amesho K, Edoun EI Critical assessment of Public Transportation System (PTS) and its implication on environmental economics through service delivery. Environmental economics, 2016(7, Iss. 4): pp. 34–47
Allen N (2016) Quality of urban life and intensification: Understanding housing choices, trade-offs, and the role of urban amenities. ResearchSpace@ Auckland
Szymańska AI (2021) The importance of the sharing economy in improving the quality of life and social integration of local communities on the example of virtual groups. Land 10(7):754
Goudsmit I, Nel D, Lin S (2023) Evaluating the quality of life in Hong Kong's new towns in relation to accessibility and the distribution of community and cultural facilities: A case study of Tung Chung. J Urban Manage 12(3):295–309
Kazepov Y (2005) Cities of Europe: Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to social cohesion. Cities of Europe: Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion, : pp. 3–42
Andreotti A, Mingione E, Polizzi E (2012) Local welfare systems: a challenge for social cohesion. Urban Stud 49(9):1925–1940
Cassiers T, Kesteloot C (2012) Socio-spatial inequalities and social cohesion in European cities. Urban Stud 49(9):1909–1924
Council NR et al (2011) Sustainability and the US EPA. National Academies
Caiado RGG et al (2018) A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod 198:1276–1288
Klooster D (2010) Standardizing sustainable development? The Forest Stewardship Council’s plantation policy review process as neoliberal environmental governance. Geoforum 41(1):117–129
de Oliveira JAP et al (2013) Green economy and governance in cities: assessing good governance in key urban economic processes. J Clean Prod 58:138–152
Da Cruz NF, Rode P, McQuarrie M (2019) New urban governance: A review of current themes and future priorities. J Urban Affairs 41(1):1–19
Bai X, McAllister RR, Beaty RM, Taylor B (2010) Urban policy and governance in a global environment: complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(3):129–135
Feiock RC, Scholz JT (2010) Self-organizing governance of institutional collective action dilemmas: An overview. Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas, : pp. 3–32
Feiock RC, Scholz JT (2009) Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge University Press
Pankhurst R (1961) Menelik and the foundation of Addis Ababa. J Afr History 2(1):103–117
Ejigu AG (2014) History, modernity, and the making of an African spatiality: Addis Ababa in perspective. Urban Forum. Springer
Shafiei K (2013) The fragmented morphology of spontaneous settlements: the case study cities of Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and Zahedan (Iran). UCL (University College London).
Murray MJ (2017) The urbanism of exception. Cambridge University Press
Boakye L (2019) The Use of Remote Sensing and GIS for Monitoring Urban Growth: The Case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Chicago State University
Givental E (2017) Addis Ababa urbanism: indigenous urban legacies and contemporary challenges. J Geogr Geol 9(1):25–36
Zewdie M, Worku H, Bantider A (2018) Temporal dynamics of the driving factors of urban landscape change of Addis Ababa during the past three decades. Environ Manage 61:132–146
Kessides C (2006) The urban transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications for economic growth and poverty reduction. Cities Alliance Washington, DC
Mohamed A (2020) Modelling land Use, land cover and environmental dynamics for Sustainable Urban Planning and Management in Addis Ababa and the surrounding Oromia special zone. Addis Ababa University
Demissie F (2013) Situated neoliberalism and urban crisis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiopia in Transit. Routledge, pp 191–213
Zewdie M, Worku H, Bantider A (2021) Inner city urban renewal: Assessing the sustainability and implications for urban landscape change of Addis Ababa. J Housing Built Environ 36(3):1249–1275
Hailemariam A (2021) Population Dynamics and Rural-Urban Migration in Ethiopia: Challenges and Opportunities. Economic Development, Population Dynamics, and Welfare, : p. 159
Cohen B (2004) Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trends and a caution regarding existing forecasts. World Dev 32(1):23–51
Hansen R et al (2019) Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: What is the state of practice? Ecol Ind 96:99–110
Farthing S (2015) Research design in urban planning: a student's guide
Williams TA, Shepherd DA (2017) Mixed method social network analysis: Combining inductive concept development, content analysis, and secondary data for quantitative analysis. Organizational Res Methods 20(2):268–298
Venkatesh V, Brown SA, Bala H (2013) Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS quarterly, : pp. 21–54
Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB (2006) The validity issue in mixed research. Res Schools 13(1):48–63
Adeoye-Olatunde OA, Olenik NL (2021) Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 4(10):1358–1367
Gupta A (2024) Types of Data, Data Collection, and Storage Methods, in Qualitative Methods and Data Analysis Using ATLAS. ti: A Comprehensive Researchers’ Manual. Springer, pp 31–59
Flynn BB, Schroeder RG, Sakakibara S (1994) A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J Oper Manag 11(4):339–366
Iaione C, The CO-C (2016) Sharing, collaborating, cooperating, and commoning in the city. Am J Econ Sociol 75(2):415–455
Luo X, Shen J (2009) A study on inter-city cooperation in the Yangtze river delta region, China. Habitat Int 33(1):52–62
GOVERNANCE S Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries
Biela J, Kaiser A, Hennl A (2013) Policy Making in Multilevel Systems: Federalism, Decentralisation, and performance in the OECD countries. ECPR
Harbers I, Tatham M, Tillin L, Isabel C, Zuber (2021) Thirty years of regional and Federal Studies. Reg Fed Stud 31(1):1–23
Giersig N (2008) Multilevel Urban Governance and the'European City': Discussing Metropolitan Reforms in Stockholm and Helsinki. Springer Science & Business Media
Lange P et al (2013) Governing towards sustainability—conceptualizing modes of governance. J Environ Planning Policy Manage 15(3):403–425
Koinova M et al (2021) It's ordered chaos: What really makes polycentrism work. Int Stud Rev 23(4):1988–2018
Evers D, De Vries J (2013) Explaining governance in five mega-city regions: rethinking the role of hierarchy and government. Eur Plan Stud 21(4):536–555
Smith-Heisters S (2020) Self-governance From Above: Principles of Polycentric Governance in Large-Scale Water Infrastructure. Arizona State University
Chikomwe S (2022) Governance of infrastructure provision in informal settlements: the electrification of unproclaimed areas in the City of Johannesburg. Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the …
Bendlin L (2019) Orchestrating Local Climate Policy in the European Union: Inter-Municipal Coordination and the Covenant of Mayors in Germany and France. Springer
Arends H (2018) The'Dangers of Decentralization'and Their Relevance to Local Public Services. Universität, Bremen
Arends H, Obinger H and C. Schmitt, examination in consideration of the award of the doctoral degree Dr. rer. pol
Horowitz I (2017) City politics and planning. Routledge
Fekade W (2000) Deficits of formal urban land management and informal responses under rapid urban growth, an international perspective. Habitat Int 24(2):127–150
Corburn J (2009) Toward the healthy city: people, places, and the politics of urban planning. MIT Press
Meijer M, van der Krabben E (2018) Informal institutional change in De Achterhoek region: from citizen initiatives to participatory governance. Eur Plan Stud 26(4):745–767
Radnitz S (2011) Informal politics and the state. Comp Politics 43(3):351–371
Islam R (2002) Building institutions for markets, vol 24. World Bank
Ascher W, Krupp C (2010) Rethinking physical infrastructure development. Physical infrastructure development: Balancing the growth, equity, and environmental imperatives. Springer, pp 1–33
Goldsmith H (2015) Actors and innovations in the evolution of infrastructure services
Escandón-Barbosa DM, Urbano D, Hurtado-Ayala A, Dominguez AZ (2019) Formal institutions, informal institutions and entrepreneurial activity: A comparative relationship between rural and urban areas in Colombia. J Urban Manage 8(3):458–471
Adams B (2004) Public meetings and the democratic process. Public Adm Rev 64(1):43–54
Goetz AM, Jenkins R (2001) Hybrid forms of accountability: citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Manage Rev 3(3):363–383
Agranoff R, McGuire M (2003) Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press
Kettl DF (2000) The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Adm Rev 60(6):488–497
Omwenga M (2010) Nairobi-emerging metropolitan region: Development planning and management opportunities and challenges. in ISOCARP CONGRESS
Meyer N, Auriacombe C (2019) Good urban governance and city resilience: An afrocentric approach to sustainable development. Sustainability 11(19):5514
Maloba DM (2015) Monitoring good governance in South African local government and its implications for institutional development and service delivery. A case study of the sub-councills and councillor support department
Gómez-Álvarez D, Rajack RM, López-Moreno E, Lanfranchi G (2017) Steering the metropolis: Metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development. Inter-American Development Bank
Fowler A (2000) Civil society, NGDOs and social development: Changing the rules of the game. Geneva 2000 Occasional Paper
Ghaus-Pasha A (2005) Role of civil society organizations in governance. Kertas Persidangan 6th Global Forum on Reinventing Government Towards Participatory and Transparent Governance. Seoul. Citeseer
Charnovitz S (2012) Accountability of non-governmental organizations in global governance, in NGO Accountability. Routledge, pp 21–42
Schomaker R (2014) Institutional quality and private sector participation: theory and empirical findings. Eur J Government Econ (EJGE) 3(2):104–118
Leigland J (2018) Public-private partnerships in developing countries: The emerging evidence-based critique. World Bank Res Obs 33(1):103–134
Guo R (2015) Cross-border management: Theory, method and application. Springer
Liu Y et al (2015) Social sensing: A new approach to understanding our socioeconomic environments. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 105(3):512–530
Huber PR, Greco SE, Thorne JH (2010) Boundaries make a difference: the effects of spatial and temporal parameters on conservation planning. Prof Geogr 62(3):409–425
Farvacque-Vitkovic CD (2014) and M. Kopanyi, Municipal finances: A handbook for local governments. World Bank
Bhattacharyay BN (2010) Financing Asia’s infrastructure: Modes of development and integration of Asian financial markets
Mmolainyane KK, Fin, Acc M, Integration F (2015) Capital Market Development and Private Sector Access to Finance in Botswana. Flinders University, Flinders Business School
Nyali X (2014) An analysis of the role of public-private partnerships in regional integration initiatives in Southern Africa. University of the Western Cape
Merna T, Njiru C (2002) Financing infrastructure projects. Thomas Telford
Kumari A, Sharma AK (2017) Infrastructure financing and development: A bibliometric review. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 16:49–65
Briceño-Garmendia C, Briceno-Garmendia C, Foster V, Smits K (2009) Financing public infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa: Patterns and emerging issues. World Bank Washington, DC
Bonin J, Wachtel P (2002) Financial sector development in transition economies: Lessons from the first decade
Rodríguez-Pose A (2008) The rise of the city-region concept and its development policy implications. Eur Plan Stud 16(8):1025–1046
Salet W, Thornley A, Kreukels A (2003) Metropolitan governance and spatial planning. Spon, London
Mullins DR (2003) Accountability and coordination in a decentralized context: Institutional, fiscal and governance issues. American University, Washington, DC
Janus H, Klingebiel S, Paulo S (2015) Beyond aid: A conceptual perspective on the transformation of development cooperation. J Int Dev 27(2):155–169
Marín-González F et al (2022) Sustainable local development: consolidated framework for cross-sectoral cooperation via a systematic approach. Sustainability 14(11):6601
Clarke A, Fuller M (2010) Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. J Bus Ethics 94:85–101
Islam MA Sustainable Urban Development–The Challenges 21st Century Cities Face
ESCAP U, ECLAC U (2011) Are we building competitive and liveable cities? guidelines for developing eco-efficient and socially inclusive infrastructure. United Nations
Chemane MS (2022) The role of the habitat policy agenda in addressing urban planning challenges in South Africa. a case study of the city of Johannesburg
Lopes CSLH (2016) Understanding Relational Locations and Complex Urban Systems: Mapping The Relations Between Computation, Space and Infrastructure. Goldsmiths, University of London
Bibri SE (2018) A foundational framework for smart sustainable city development: Theoretical, disciplinary, and discursive dimensions and their synergies. Sustainable Cities Soc 38:758–794
Andreotti A, Galès PL, Moreno-Fuentes FJ (2015) Globalised minds, roots in the city: Urban upper-middle classes in Europe. Wiley
Simon D (2008) Urban environments: issues on the peri-urban fringe. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33(1):167–185
Hardoy JE, Mitlin D, Satterthwaite D (2013) Environmental problems in an urbanizing world: finding solutions in cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Routledge
Goldman T, Wachs M (2003) A quiet revolution in transportation finance: The rise of local option transportation taxes
Dewan AM, Kabir MH, Nahar K, Rahman MZ (2012) Urbanisation and environmental degradation in Dhaka Metropolitan Area of Bangladesh. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 11(2):118–147
Reynolds L (2003) Intergovernmental cooperation, metropolitan equity, and the new regionalism. Wash L Rev 78:93
Holloway JE, Guy DC (2000) Smart Growth and Limits on Government Powers: Effecting Nature, Markets and the Quality of Life Under the Takings and Other Provisions. Dick J Envtl L Pol'y 9:421

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementarycontent.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The current governance paradigm for integrated urban infrastructure planning in the metropolitan areas of Addis Ababa and Sheger

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Materials and method

2.1 Study area

2.2 Research design and approaches

3 Data types

2.4 Data sources

2.5 Sampling techniques and sample size determination

2.6 Data collection methods

2.7 Data analysis

2.8 Data presentation

2.9 Quality assurance

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Institutional integration

3.2 Spatial integration

3.3 Financial integration

3.4 Challenges of metropolitan governance

4. Conclusion and recommendations

4.1 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1