A recent study in Norway sheds light on the evolving role of urban authorities in freight governance, particularly in smaller cities. While local governments have a presence in freight-related decision-making, many perceive their influence as limited—either by narrow institutional mandates or by a reluctance to regulate freight activities more assertively. This uncertainty often leads to a reactive and fragmented approach to freight governance, which hinders long-term transformation.
Governance models
Authorities today engage in multiple governance modes—regulating (authority), enabling innovation, providing infrastructure (provisioning), and managing their logistics flows (self-governing). However, their actions tend to favor established private-sector actors who have the resources and expertise to navigate existing frameworks. Living Labs and pilot projects have emerged as valuable tools to test new freight solutions, but these initiatives are rarely driven by public authorities and seldom result in institutional change. In most cases, lessons from experimentation are not systematically embedded into policy or planning processes.
These findings are consistent with previous research, which shows that public authorities often lack sufficient knowledge about urban freight and have historically prioritized passenger transport and general urban development over logistics. Freight solutions have largely been left to private actors, reflecting a broader European trend of passive logistics governance.
Yet, the study also highlights a more constructive path forward. By expanding four modes of governance—authority, provision, self-governing, and enabling—the researchers argue that a more active and balanced public role is both possible and desirable. Logistics stakeholders are increasingly calling for clearer direction from public authorities, while cities aim to strike a balance between regulation and facilitation. This dynamic, however, may be delaying the institutionalization of freight knowledge in municipal planning processes.
In today’s complex and fragmented urban logistics landscape, local authorities are increasingly required to play a more active role in freight governance. Rather than viewing governance solely as the domain of the state or, conversely, as a function of self-organizing networks outside the state, this approach recognizes governance as a shared responsibility between public and private actors.
Many stakeholders
Urban freight operates within a multi-level, cross-sectoral system involving local governments, infrastructure providers, logistics companies, and other stakeholders. The governance challenges resemble those found in urban climate policy, where overlapping responsibilities and institutional silos necessitate more integrated and collaborative solutions.
The study applies four “modes of governance” to the freight domain, offering a structured lens through which to understand the evolving roles of public authorities:
- Provision – Influencing logistics practices through public service delivery and investment in freight-related infrastructure.
- Authority – Enforcing rules and regulations, from access restrictions to zoning policies.
- Enabling – Supporting and coordinating innovation, partnerships, and stakeholder engagement.
- Self-governing – Leading by example through the management of the city’s freight operations.
Initially developed in the context of climate governance, this framework is now being extended to analyze how local governments can shape urban freight systems—often beyond their formal mandates and responsibilities. This shift opens new possibilities for more strategic and proactive roles in managing freight flows, enhancing livability, and supporting sustainable urban development.
Conclusions
The study concludes that, especially in smaller cities, knowledge-building depends heavily on individuals rather than systems. Nonetheless, combining governance modes offers a promising route to strengthen institutional capacity. For example, enabling approaches like freight experiments can support regulatory changes (authority) and internal planning processes (self-governing). Tools such as urban planning guidelines and collaborative planning platforms, like City Investment Dialogues (CID), could serve as key instruments for integrating freight into broader urban strategies.
Overall, the research highlights the need for integrated, multimodal governance frameworks that enable local authorities to lead—not just facilitate—the future of urban freight.
Source: Rafael Rosales (2024) Is it enough to enable freight? Modes of governance for urban logistics in Norway, European Planning Studies, 32:12, 2473-2492, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2024.2372409