MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116365402 · doi:10.1787/ada07311-en

Integrated urban policy to achieve the SDGs

2025· report· W7116365402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
OECD

Bibliographic record

VenueOECD regional development papers · 2025
Typereport
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentUrban planningPresidencyUrban policyPublic policyUrban environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This policy paper examines how integrated urban policy, which co-ordinates policy action across sectors, levels of government, and stakeholders, can accelerate progress towards the SDGs in cities. As the 2030 Agenda deadline nears, cities across OECD countries show mixed results on the SDGs. While cities have improved on SDG 17 on partnerships for the goals and SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities, significant gaps remain in areas linked to housing, transport, energy efficiency and climate action. This paper argues that National Urban Policies (NUPs) can help accelerate progress by aligning urban development with the SDGs. Drawing on OECD and G7 countries’ experience, the paper highlights seven priority fields where integrated urban policy can drive progress across multiple goals: affordable housing, sustainable transport, energy efficiency, digitalisation, urban regeneration, land-use planning, and green infrastructure. The paper also explores how governments can strengthen integrated urban policy by deepening multi-stakeholder engagement, ensuring public and private finance is secured and aligned, and maintaining continuous monitoring and evaluation of policies. The analysis and recommendations aim to support governments at all levels advance more integrated and effective urban policy to accelerate progress towards the SDGs and shape more resilient urban futures. The paper was prepared by the OECD to support the Italian Presidency of the G7 in 2024 and informed the discussions of the G7 Ministerial Meeting on Sustainable Urban Development in November 2024 in Rome, Italy. It also benefited from additional data, examples and reviews under the Canadian Presidency of the G7 in 2025.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.027

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOECD regional development papersFrench-language works237,207