3.1 Sewerage system
A sizable majority of respondents (85.7%) in the study areas indicated that there was no integrated sewerage plan disposal site between the two cities under study, for a variety of reasons. Particularly, (24%) pointed to a lack of agreement between the cities; (13.2%) mentioned disagreements on boundaries; (20%) highlighted the lack of a compensation mechanism; and a substantial (42.9%) emphasized the lack of a legal framework.
Despite the previous literature's emphasis on the value of institutional coordination and collaborative governance (Biddle & Koontz, 2014; Frankowski, 2019; Koontz & Thomas, 2021); the lack of an integrated sewerage plan disposal site reflects challenges in collaborative governance and institutional coordination between the cities. This emphasized the importance of legal frameworks and governance structures in shaping urban infrastructure (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The absence of a common sewage disposal site shows missed opportunities for cost-effective infrastructure sharing, environmental sustainability, and public health improvement. It underscored the need for enhanced inter-municipal cooperation, updated regulatory frameworks, and inclusive planning processes. These findings could explore strategies for overcoming barriers to common infrastructure development. This may involve establishing collaborative mechanisms such as joint agreements, public-private partnerships, or regional authorities tasked with infrastructure planning and management. Additionally, addressing legal and regulatory gaps requires a multi-stakeholder approach from different actors, which can facilitate knowledge exchange and capacity building in infrastructure governance.
According to the study, 30.9% stated that there is a common disposal area, while 69.1% stated that there is no such common disposal site. The findings indicate that there are no common sewage disposal sites in the cities. These highlight a significant gap in developing integrated sewerage planning and indicate limited efforts by the cities to have a common disposal site.
Furthermore, these findings indicate a lack of collaborative infrastructure planning and governance between the studied cities. Despite document reviews and interviews confirming the separate development of different policy documents and legal frameworks in the study areas, a lack of common practices persists. Thus, the findings emphasized the importance of legal frameworks, agreements, and coordination mechanisms in facilitating common infrastructure development. It also points out that, from a governance perspective, the lack of a legal framework and collaborative agreements suggests the need for enhanced inter-municipal cooperation, regulatory reforms, and capacity-building initiatives.
The findings indicated that creating joint committees or task groups for sewerage infrastructure development, encouraging communication and consensus-building among stakeholders, and utilizing public-private partnerships are the key solutions for the study areas. This may involve creating a dedicated institute, committee, or task force with a mandate to facilitate collaboration, resolve conflicts, and promote collective decision-making.
3.2 Drainage system
When asked whether the cities have common storm water master plan, 17.4 percent of respondents indicated that cities have a common water master plan. While 82.6 percent of respondents stated that cities do not have a common water master plan, regarding strategies for flood protection in lower reaches, 16 percent of respondents reported the existence of strategies to protect people in lower reaches from floods. And 81.3 percent of respondents stated that there were no strategies in place to protect people in lower reaches from floods. Lack of a common storm water master plan in cities can lead to several issues, such as flooding, water pollution, and inefficient water usage (Putri et al., 2023; Qi & Barclay, 2021). The absence of strategies for flood protection in the lower reaches highlighted potential vulnerabilities in urban planning and disaster management.
Cities without a common storm water master plan may face increased risks of urban flooding and environmental degradation. The lack of such systems could also hinder sustainable water resource management efforts. The absence of strategies for protecting people in lower reaches from floods indicates a potential gap in disaster preparedness and response. Vulnerable populations living in flood-prone areas may face heightened risks without adequate protection measures. The findings suggest a need for policy makers to prioritize the development of integrated storm water master plan in the study areas. The lack of strategies for flood protection raises concerns about the resilience of urban infrastructure and the safety of vulnerable communities.
Regarding coordination of storm water drainage master plan, (26%) of respondents indicated that the storm water drainage master plan was coordinated between the cities. (74%) of respondents stated that there was no coordination of the storm water drainage master plan with surrounding cities. Lack of coordination in storm water drainage plans can lead to inefficiencies, increased flood risks, and water quality issues (Adisu & Hailemikael, 2017).
The lack of coordination in storm water drainage plans between the cities suggests potential challenges in addressing cross-border water management issues. Collaboration among municipal authorities, regional bodies, and stakeholders is vital to ensuring coordinated storm water drainage planning across city boundaries. Mechanisms such as joint infrastructure projects, data sharing, and policy alignment can facilitate effective coordination in storm water planning.
51% of respondents in a survey evaluating attempts to implement an integrated approach to physical infrastructure in the study areas responded "yes," suggesting that such efforts are still underway. However, 48.9% of respondents said "no," indicating that a sizable majority of respondents might not think highly of such integrated techniques. The goal of constructing physical infrastructure in cities through an integrated strategy aligned with the concept of (Gangwar et al.; Kumari & Raghubanshi, 2023), who highlighted the necessity of coordinated and synergistic planning across many infrastructure sectors. This demonstrated the value of using integrated strategies to solve problems with the environment, society, and economy (Habitat, 2013a, 2018; Lambrecht & Tollin, 2017; Watson, 2016).
Divergent responses to efforts to implement integrated systems reflect different priorities and problems in the development of urban infrastructure. Various factors, such as stakeholder collaboration, financial sources, and governance frameworks, influence the viability and effectiveness of integrated systems. In addition, conversations about knowledge sharing and capacity building are essential to the advancement of integrated urban infrastructure development. By exchanging best practices, assisting in inter-agency coordination, and encouraging cross-sectoral collaboration, we can improve the adoption of integrated approaches.
The vast majority of respondents (78.3%) said that their organization plans to coordinate with other cities and sub-cities in the future. However, (17.4%) of respondents said "no," indicating that a lesser percentage of institutions might not be prioritizing or planning to prioritize such coordinating efforts at this time. Institutions that aim to achieve coordination in the future understand the value of interdependence and teamwork in accomplishing common goals.
Improved service delivery, less effort duplication, and more effective use of resources can result from institutional cooperation, innovation, learning, and resilience. Numerous institutions have established coordination goals for the future, indicating the importance and necessity of intercity collaboration. Converting these objectives into workable plans requires conversations about efficient coordination methods, lines of communication, and governance frameworks. In addition, effective institutional coordination initiatives depend heavily on developing mutual understanding, establishing trust, and coordinating priorities.
Regarding the existence of rules, frameworks, or other legal circumstances that support institutional integration among stakeholders, the survey's results showed that (47.8%) of respondents said "yes." (51.2%) of respondents, on the other hand, indicated that they did not have such laws or rules in place. According to (Ansell & Gash, 2008) theories suggest that the presence or absence of laws and regulatory frameworks significantly influences institutional integration among stakeholders, underscoring the importance of these frameworks in fostering effective coordination and collaboration among diverse stakeholders (Glaeser, 2013). The existence or absence of rules and legal frameworks governing institutional integration impacts transparency, accountability, and cooperation. In order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of collaborative activities, lower conflict, and improve coordination, regulations can encourage cooperation by giving institutions rules, guidelines, and incentives to work together toward shared goals.
The availability of rules or legal frameworks for institutional integration demonstrates varying degrees of institutional support and acknowledgement for collaborative governance. Initiatives for capacity-building, stakeholder education, and awareness-raising can also enhance comprehension and adherence to regulatory frameworks.
Regarding whether cities have collaborative projects through shared finance, (53.8%) of respondents said "yes," while (65.3%) said "no." Focus group discussions and interviews verified that cities do, in fact, currently have collaborative projects underway. This disparity in replies raises the possibility that respondents were unaware of or misunderstood the existence of collaboratively sponsored joint initiatives. The results emphasized how crucial it is for collaborative initiatives (Neumann et al., (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2017) to prioritize communication, transparency, and stakeholder involvement in order to take into account the interests and viewpoints of all parties involved, including those working on joint projects (Freeman, 2010). Furthermore, the results emphasized the significance of collaborative funding and partnership agreements in tackling intricate problems and accomplishing mutual objectives (Klijn, 2016; Klijn et al., 2020; Larsson, 2019).
The results open the door for future collaborations and projects, and they have many consequences for awareness and communication, efficiency and resource optimization, trust, and teamwork. The disparity observed in survey results and the outcomes of focus groups, interviews, and discussions underscored the necessity of enhanced communication and raising awareness in cooperative projects..
In response to a question concerning a project's funding source, participants gave the following breakdown: (19.2%) identified municipal funds, (30.8%) stated special savings, and (34.6%) confirmed government loans. The diversity of funding sources indicates that a combination of internal and external channels finance these initiatives. Project finance sources are consistent with ideas that highlight how the government raises and distributes money for public projects via loan and grant programs (Musgrave, 1973). Government loans are a popular way for cities to raise money for development projects by financing infrastructure. The study of municipal finance theory focuses on the sources of funding for local governments, such as taxes, fees, and other kinds of income (Lin & Zhang, 2015; Pagano & Perry, 2008). Municipal money is a crucial source of funding for civic initiatives, infrastructure upgrades, and service provision. Furthermore, budgeting, savings, and strategic financial planning are critical components of project funding(EF & Ehrhardt, 2013).
These findings have implications for how cities can best allocate resources, prioritize projects based on needs, and optimize the return on investments in infrastructure and services. Specifically, diverse sources of financing for projects provide financial stability, risk mitigation, and resource allocation. The variety of financing sources sparks discussions on financial tactics, debt management, and revenue diversification for cities. We must consider factors such as interest rates, repayment schedules, and budgetary sustainability to use government loans wisely and effectively.
A small percentage (3.8%) of respondents answered yes to the question of whether the topography of the cities is hindering the integration of the local city or sub-city, while a majority (57.7%) answered no. This implies that people generally do not perceive city topography as a significant barrier to the integration of local city or sub-city areas. The findings align with theories of urban planning and geographic analysis, with topography influencing settlement patterns but not necessarily hindering integration (Christaller & Baskin, 1966). While topographic features can influence infrastructure design and development, modern engineering practices and technology often mitigate integration challenges. often mitigate integration challenges. Aligning with the present findings (Longley et al., 2015) they highlight the role of spatial data analysis and visualization in understanding and addressing urban challenges to assess topographic constraints, optimize infrastructure planning, and promote integration through informed decision-making.
The perception that topography does not significantly hinder the integration of local city/sub-cities areas has several implications for urban planning, infrastructure development, and spatial analysis. GIS tools and spatial analysis techniques provide valuable insights into topographic features, helping planners optimize land use, transportation networks, connectivity, accessibility, cohesion, and urban design to meet diverse topographic conditions and reduce integration barriers. The findings strongly affirmed that the role of technology, engineering innovation, and data-driven decision-making in addressing urban challenges is critical in leveraging technology to overcome topographic constraints and promote integration.
3.3 Solid waste management
According to the survey, that asking to proof a common solid waste disposal site in the area, only (24%) of respondents indicated the presence of a common solid waste disposal site in the area, while a significant majority of (76%) reported the absence of such a facility. These highlighted the lack of common solid waste disposal facilities shared between the cities under study which created problems for the environment. The findings align with theories of environmental governance and sustainable development (Cox et al., 2016; Partelow et al., 2018). The absence of a common solid waste disposal site suggests challenges in coordinating waste management efforts and promoting resource efficiency across municipal boundaries.
This implies that, the lack of common solid waste disposal facilities indicates inefficiencies, potential environmental impacts (Kum et al., 2005) and missed opportunities for cost savings and resource optimization. Furthermore, separate waste disposal systems can lead to increased transportation costs, emissions, and logistical challenges, contributing to negative environmental outcomes. These underscored the need for integrated waste planning and management strategies and collaborative solutions (Bevir, 2012).
The findings prompt discussions on strategies for improving waste planning practices and promoting sustainable development by establishing shared solid waste disposal facilities, implementing waste-to-energy technologies, and incentivizing waste reduction and recycling initiatives. There should also be focus on the role of regulatory frameworks, public-private partnerships, and community engagement in driving sustainable waste management practices.
Among the options given as the reason for the lack of a common solid waste storage area are lack of an integrated plan (34%)), lack of agreement (2%), lack of Compensation mechanism (16%)) and administrative problems (48%). These findings highlighted from many reasons significant challenges and barriers to establishing shared waste management infrastructure between the cities under study administrative issue is the major one. The survey results indicated that administrative issues and the lack of integrated planning are significant factors contributing to the absence of a common solid waste disposal site between the cities under study. The lack of an integrated plan reflects challenges in aligning priorities, resources, and decision-making processes across multilevel jurisdictions.
The implications of these findings are substantial for waste management practices, environmental sustainability, and public health. The lack of a common solid waste storage area due to administrative problems and the absence of an integrated plan suggested inefficiencies, potential environmental impacts, and increased costs associated with waste disposal. Moreover, administrative challenges can lead to delays, conflicts, and suboptimal outcomes in waste management operations, exacerbating environmental risks and community concerns. The findings prompt discussions on establishing inter-municipal agreements, developing integrated waste management plans, investing in infrastructure, and enhancing administrative capacities. It should also focus on the role of technology, innovation, and public-private partnerships in improving waste management practices and promoting circular economy principles.
When asked about the existence of such a plan, only 18% of respondents answered yes, while a substantial majority of 82% answered no. These findings highlighted a lack of coordinated and future-oriented planning for solid waste management infrastructure. Administrative challenges can hinder effective decision-making, resource allocation, and coordination among municipal authorities, leading to gaps in infrastructure planning and implementation.
The absence of a common solid waste disposal plan indicates missed opportunities for cost-effective infrastructure sharing, resource optimization, and environmental sustainability (Taye, 2018; Teshome, 2021). Moreover, the lack of integrated planning can lead to ad-hoc solutions, inefficiencies, and challenges in meeting future waste management needs, potentially resulting in environmental degradation and public health risks (Biswas et al., 2010).
The findings prompt discussions on strategies for improving integrated planning, governance structures, and capacity building for waste management. This may involve enhancing collaboration among municipal authorities, developing long-term waste management strategies, and leveraging technological solutions. Building institutional capacity (Partelow et al., 2018), fostering inter-sectoral cooperation, and incorporating environmental considerations into planning processes are essential for addressing these challenges.
In response to the alternative questions of who should take responsibility for joint cooperation, the mayor's committee (30%), a newly established institute (13%) and no institute represented (57%). As a majority of 57.1% indicating no specific institute represented to coordinate their joint work and is not moving for this task. This suggests a lack of a designated body or mechanism for coordinating joint efforts between the cities under study.
The absence of a designated institute or committee reflects challenges in establishing effective mechanisms for inter-municipal cooperation and coordination. The findings indicated the importance of clear roles, responsibilities, and coordination structures in facilitating collaborative initiatives and addressing collective challenges.
The implications of these findings indicated that, this can hinder progress in shared infrastructure development, service delivery, and addressing common issues that excel municipal boundaries. Moreover, the lack of a designated institute or committee may indicate gaps in leadership, institutional capacity, and political will to prioritize inter-city cooperation. This could lead to missed opportunities for leveraging shared resources, expertise, and funding for mutual benefit.
For the question whether the cities need a new solid waste disposal sites, the survey results indicate a majority (98%) of respondents believed that cities need new solid waste disposal sites. Conversely, a small minority (2%) expressed that there is no need for additional waste storage facilities. These findings highlighted a significant perceived demand for improved integrated waste planning and management in the study areas. The need for new solid waste disposal sites can be attributed to several factors. Rapid urbanization leads to increased waste generation, putting strain on existing disposal facilities. Additionally, outdated integrated waste planning practices may not be equipped to handle modern waste streams effectively. Environmental concerns and regulatory requirements further underscored the necessity for updated waste storage facilities.
These findings implied that, there is a practical need to invest in new solid waste disposal sites to meet the growing demands of the cities populations. Moreover, the development of modern waste management infrastructure aligns with sustainability goals and promotes a cleaner, healthier environment for residents (Hirpe & Yeom, 2021; Rahman & Alam, 2020). The disparity between those advocating for new waste disposal sites and those opposing them suggests a potential divide in public opinion or awareness regarding waste planning issues. It also raises questions about the adequacy of current waste management strategies and the need for public education and engagement on sustainable waste practices and the financial implications of establishing new disposal sites and the feasibility of implementing alternative waste management solutions.
That being said, when asked how they intend to achieve this, they responded by expropriation through force (8%), expropriation through compensation (56%) and not knowing (32%). From this we can understand that when they need a new solid waste storage space, they have been able to confirm that the cities request the site by paying compensation for the owners. Land use theories suggest that conflicts often arise when allocating space for different purposes, such as waste disposal facilities. These aligned with recognizing the need to compensate affected communities for any inconvenience or impact.
This highlights the need for fair and transparent compensation frameworks in land acquisition processes. The significant proportion of respondents who are unsure or unaware of the process underscored the importance of public education and outreach regarding urban planning and waste management initiatives.
What is the impact of urban growth on this service? For the options presented, a majority of respondents (64%) identified an increase in the amount of waste as a significant impact. Additionally, a notable proportion highlighted the need for sophisticated technology (16%) and skilled manpower (6%) to manage the growing waste effectively. Regarding legal frameworks and inter-city considerations, a majority (56%) indicated that cities do take each other into account when preparing legal frameworks, potentially leveraging shared resources and awareness. The sector leaders and experts, who were interviewed, in their response to this issue, stated that Addis Ababa city has prepared in a way that brings the understanding of Sheger city, especially in the area of water resource use, environment protection and transportation.
These emphasized the challenges posed by rapid urban growth, including increased waste generation and the need for advanced infrastructure and services and the importance of technology and skilled personnel to address these challenges effectively (Watson, 2009). The increase in waste generation necessitates investments in advanced technology and skilled workforce, highlighting the need for sustainable waste management strategies.
The findings highlighted the complex interplay between urban growth, waste management, and inter-city cooperation. As cities expand, they face challenges in waste management that require technological advancements and skilled personnel. Collaborative approaches to legal frameworks can enhance resource sharing and best practices, leading to more efficient and sustainable urban development.
The responses given to the alternative question about how cities can cooperate with each other are as follows: (48%) by working together (10%) by using resources together (20%) by planning together (14%) by exchanging experts and (6%) by sharing and establishing an institution. It can be understood from this finding that the main things that the two cities cooperate with are working together and planning together.
The survey responses indicate various ways in which cities can cooperate with each other. The majority of respondents (48%) believe that cooperation is achieved by working together, while a significant portion (20%) mentioned using resources together. Planning together (14%), exchanging experts (10%) a small percentage (6%) suggested establishing an institution for cooperation. These findings can be understood collaborative governance, inter-city partnerships, and resource sharing, cooperation among multiple stakeholders, including cities and benefits of strategic alliances and shared initiatives in addressing common urban challenges.
The emphasis on working and planning together suggested that cities recognize the value of coordinated efforts and shared visions in achieving common goals. The findings underscored that working and planning together are foundational elements of effective cooperation, enabling cities to align their priorities, strategies, and actions.
For the question of conflict between the two cities, (52%) of respondents acknowledged the existence of a conflict with Sheger City regarding solid waste disposal. Regarding ways to cooperate with non-existent stakeholders for site protection and waste disposal, (44%) suggested dialogue, (22%) mentioned compensation, 6% proposed giving incentives, and (26%) mentioned other strategies. These findings emphasized the importance of dialogue, negotiation, and finding mutually acceptable solutions to address disputes and conflicts. Incentive structures theories underscore the role of incentives and rewards in encouraging cooperation and fostering positive behavior among stakeholders.
The survey results carry implications for conflict management, stakeholder engagement, and sustainable waste management practices. Recognizing and addressing conflicts related to waste disposal is crucial for effective urban governance and environmental sustainability. The findings highlighted the complexity of waste management issues and the importance of collaborative approaches in addressing conflicts. Dialogue can facilitate understanding, communication, and consensus-building among stakeholders. Compensation and incentives can provide tangible benefits and incentives for cooperation.
3.4 Transport and road network system
The results of the survey show that 34.6% of participants said "yes," indicating that there are sufficient parking lots, bus terminals, and other forms of transportation to link the two cities. On the other hand, 65.4% of respondents said "no," indicating deficiencies in the infrastructure of transportation connecting the cities. Inadequate transportation infrastructure can result in traffic jams, restricted mobility choices, and decreased connectedness, which can affect business operations, cause commuter annoyance, and lower the attraction of public transportation options and overall quality of life. In addition to influencing user happiness and overall service performance, these demand a strong transportation infrastructure to facilitate mobility, accessibility, and connectivity between metropolitan areas (Cervero & Kockelman, 1997; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Mobility issues might arise for locals, commuters, and tourists going between the two cities if there are insufficient transit options. This may result in longer travel times, heavy traffic, and inefficiencies in the transportation network. The results confirmed that in order to close the gaps in transportation infrastructure and increase connectivity and mobility options, multi-stakeholder participation, budget allocation, and strategic planning are necessary
According to the results, particularly (26.9%) people ranked the state and condition of the transportation infrastructure as good, (53%) as medium, and (49.2%) as terrible. These diverse viewpoints brought to light varying opinions about the quality and condition of transportation infrastructure as it exists now. Grasberg et al. (2004) assert that the assessment, management, and grading of the state of transportation infrastructure suggest varying degrees of asset management procedures, maintenance efforts, and investment priorities.
Fixing infrastructure flaws can increase customer satisfaction, encourage a shift to more environmentally friendly transportation options, and raise general opinions about the transportation system. The results showed how important it is for government organizations, transportation authorities, and community stakeholders to work together to identify priority areas for improvement and carry out successful infrastructure renovations.
The various rankings of the state of the transportation infrastructure highlight the difficulty in managing the system and the significance of ongoing evaluation, upkeep, and enhancement initiatives. By addressing identified weaknesses, enhancing the user experience, and prioritizing sustainable transport solutions, stakeholders can contribute to the development of a more robust, effective, and user-centered transport infrastructure system.
When asked what factors influence integration, the respondents listed a variety of factors: language barriers (16.8%); administrative systems (39%); political systems (28.4%); cross-border issues (30.8%); organizational relations (27.3%); inter-organizational relationships (22.3%); economic differences (46.4%); and all of the above (79.3%). Participants in focus groups and interviews reiterated similar arguments and added other elements influencing integration. Cross-border concerns, political systems, and economic disparities highlight the intricate interplay of systems that influences integration efforts. In order to achieve shared objectives, (Ansell & Gash, 2008) highlighted the significance of cooperative relationships, trust, and communication within businesses.
The wide range of issues highlighted the complexity of integration efforts, necessitating a multifaceted strategy that takes organizational, cultural, political, and economic concerns into account. To overcome obstacles and take advantage of possibilities, effective integration strategies should place a high priority on inclusive decision-making processes, cross-sectoral collaboration, and stakeholder involvement. By removing obstacles and promoting inclusive and long-lasting integration processes, they accounted for a variety of elements, such as cooperative governance systems, cross-sectoral collaborations, and cultural sensitivity.
The survey revealed the various effects of population growth on integrated infrastructure planning. Specifically, 50% of respondents indicated increased demand for infrastructure, 48% mentioned the need for collaborative management, 58.4% highlighted the necessity of open finance, and a significant 83.1 percent acknowledged that all these impacts were possible. (Cherepovitsyn et al., 2021; Hannigan, 2022; Harper & Snowden, 2017; Harris & Roach, 2017; Schnall et al., 2009) argues that this aligns with the finding that 50% of respondents identified increased infrastructure demand due to population growth. As (Ansell & Gash, 2008) point out, the need for collaborative management (48%) among respondents reflected the recognition that effective infrastructure planning requires cooperation among diverse stakeholders. Furthermore, (Rowbottom & Locke, 2016) found that 58.4% of respondents highlighted the necessity of open finance, underscoring the importance of transparent financial practices in infrastructure planning to ensure efficient resource utilization.
The findings implied that population growth necessitates proactive infrastructure planning to meet increased demand for transportation, housing, utilities, and public services. Failure to address this demand can lead to congestion, service shortages, and a reduced quality of life. Also, transparent financial planning promotes accountability, trust, and prudent resource allocation, ensuring that infrastructure investments align with community needs and long-term sustainability goals. The findings highlight the interconnected nature of population growth, infrastructure planning, and governance. Furthermore, discussions should focus on strategies for proactive infrastructure development, collaborative governance models, and transparent financial practices to address the impacts of population growth effectively.
We list the following reasons for the lack of integrated infrastructure planning: The reasons for the lack of integrated infrastructure planning include (10%) hesitancy among stakeholders, (21.2%) lack of support from policymakers, (31.2%) lack of focus, and (36.9%) lack of attention. The above findings revealed that all of these elements work together to make integrated infrastructure planning difficult to accomplish. These findings support the difficulties organizations face in converting policies into workable plans and activities, often due to a lack of funding, insufficient focus, or poor coordination (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980). The results also showed how institutional structures, rules, and legal frameworks can help or hurt integrated planning initiatives (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2021). The lack of a policy and legal framework breeds uncertainty and makes it difficult for stakeholders and sectors to synchronize goals and actions.
We should focus on implicit capacity-building initiatives that tackle the reluctance and neglect of legal and policy frameworks, as well as stakeholder cooperation. The results spark debates about the necessity of proactive steps, regulatory changes, and stakeholder engagement plans to remove obstacles to integrated infrastructure planning. Overcoming obstacles and promoting integrated planning initiatives require cooperative efforts between government agencies, legislators, civil society, data sharing, technology adoption, and capacity building.
Within the infrastructure-provider sectors, we observe the following patterns of coordination: There are three different levels of coordination: strong (26.9%), weak (57.7%), and unknown (11.5%). This indicates that people generally perceive infrastructure suppliers to be poorly coordinated. These results support(Oliver, 1990) assertion that cooperative partnerships, common objectives, and efficient communication are critical for infrastructure service providers. Strong coordination facilitates better service delivery, fewer redundancies, and stronger synergies. Also, it emphasized how governance frameworks, laws, and customs influence cooperative networks and coordination procedures (Klijn, 2016).
The trends of insufficient coordination between infrastructure-provider sectors have several consequences for service delivery, efficiency, and governance. We achieved enhancements in resource optimization, stakeholder satisfaction, and service integration. The results showed that fixing problems like broken governance frameworks, few communication channels, competing interests, cooperative planning procedures, and stakeholder participation can encourage infrastructure providers to work together, be open, and take responsibility, which are all important parts of making coordination better.
According to the survey results, a large majority (86.6%) has identified proposed routes that link the town to neighboring towns or cities, while a smaller proportion (15.4%) have not. Identifying proposed routes to neighboring areas in infrastructure planning reflects a strategic approach to resource allocation and connectivity, leveraging external resources for economic and social development. These signified the establishment of transportation networks that facilitate economic activities, social interactions, and access to services (Granovetter, 1973). Strong network connections between towns and cities promote resilience, innovation, and growth through enhanced connectivity.
These implied that proposed routes contribute to improved connectivity (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD 2017), (Cigu et al., 2018; Mistura, 2019; Needs, 2012; Pisu et al., 2015; Prus & Sikora, 2021; Rodríguez-Pose et al., 2018), enabling efficient movement of people, goods, and services between the cities. This can lead to economic benefits and enhanced accessibility. On top of these, strong transportation links foster regional development by promoting trade, attracting investments, and creating employment opportunities. Integrated transport networks support sustainable urbanization and balanced growth across regions. Therefore, the findings prompt discussions on infrastructure planning, investment priorities, and stakeholder collaboration. Strategic planning initiatives should focus on enhancing identified routes, addressing connectivity gaps, ensuring infrastructure resilience and multi-modal transport solutions, public-private partnerships, and sustainable mobility to support future growth and development.