Quality Criteria to Evaluate Performant and Scope of 2030 Agenda in Metropolitan Areas: Case Study on Strategic Planning of Environmental Municipality Management

: The UN’s 2030 Agenda brings new governance challenges to municipal environmental planning, both in large urban centres and in metropolitan peripheries. The opportunities of the new framework of action proposed by the United Nations (UN) and its integrative, global and transversal nature constitute advances from the previous models of municipal management based on the Local Agenda 21. This text provides evidence to apply quality criteria and validated instruments of participatory evaluation. These instruments have been built on the foundation of Evaluative Research, a scientific discipline that provides rigour and validity to those decisions adopted at a municipal level. A case study focused on a metropolitan area serves as a field of experimentation for this model of the modernization of environmental management structures at a local level. Details of the instruments, agents, priority decision areas, methodologies, participation processes and quality criteria are provided, as well as an empirically validated model for participatory municipal management based on action research processes and strategic planning that favours a shared responsibility across all social groups in the decision-making process and in the development of continuous improvement activities that are committed to sustainability. Finally, a critical comparison of weaknesses and strengths is included in light of the evidence collected. continuous training in the development of sustainable actions.


Introduction
The Environmental Strategic Planning (ESP) applied to the field of municipal management emerges as a governance instrument that provides rigour and rationality to the interventions and decisions proposed to counter environmental problems and scenarios. The principles that inspire it, and the methodologies it applies, base the actions on quality criteria endowed with instruments for evaluating achievement and compliance with standards. These instruments help to ensure decisions are made following a certain direction or to convert them following the demands and requirements of the new planning and urban governance agendas [1].
The 2030 Agenda (2030A) launched by United Nations (UN) in 2015 represents an integrative framework for the development of environmental governance within the framework of municipal management. This agenda inherits the spirit with which the Agendas 21 [2,3], which started at the Rio 92 Summit, were built, giving them continuity from a new and more comprehensive integrative framework that demands cross-cutting commitments around 17 objectives, 169 goals and 241 indicators.
The 2030A takes up the torch for the advances and successes of Agendas 21, overcoming its limitations [4]. This is especially true in relation to the processes involving social intervention and its methodology: providing them with a timeline and the means and instruments of a strategic nature 2 of 23 that go beyond the immediate, that contemplate the basic ingredients of environmental complexity, and which are approached from a holistic and inclusive vision.
Recent advances in the field of Sustainability Sciences open the gate to emerging disciplinary areas such as Global Urban Science [5,6,7,8], built from new paradigms and ways of doing science through models that are participatory in nature. These models provide significant novelties to the ways of developing socio-environmental knowledge and justify decision-making outcomes in municipal management. They also open an inexhaustible field of exploration for the progress and modernization of municipal governance models and urban environment management [9,10,11,12]: `science-policy interactions between urban scholars and urban practitioners have, in the wake of the Paris Agreement, Sendai Framework, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN's Habitat III-New Urban Agenda (NUA), undergone important steps towards greater integration´ [13] (p. 12).
Throughout this paper, we highlight the steps to follow in the application of participatory methodologies for the development of 2030A in a municipal context using Participatory Action Research (PAR) approaches, involving researchers, citizens and managers.
`Academic environmental research can play a key role in informing the design, implementation and evaluation of sustainable urban strategies at the global scale. In addition, the active involvement of various non-academic actors in the production of urban knowledge for policy, as well as the multitude of actors involved in urban affairs (beyond government) requires the scholarly community to look beyond academia and forge new collaborations to enhance research use into urban strategies´ [13](p.14). Dominant research modes are not enough to guide the societal transformations necessary to achieve the 2030A. Researchers, practitioners, decision makers, funders and civil society should work together to achieve universally accessible and mutually beneficial sustainability science [14]. New approaches to science, such as action research [15], mode two knowledge production [16]: transdisciplinary research [17,18] and post-normal science [19] that propose that scientists should engage in deliberative learning processes with societal actors, with a view to jointly reflecting on existing development visions and creating new, contextualized ones [20].
It is within the framework of this participatory research logic that we focus this study, which aims to: 1) Characterize a methodological model of strategic environmental planning based on democratic evaluation (participatory research-action approach): define stages, obstacles, conditions and limitations from a practical case study.
2) Analyse and assess the contribution of this strategic planning model to the development of the 2030A in the case study analysed.
3) Provide the necessary guidelines to address the 2030A in local municipal management through a citizen leadership model. 4) Identify new challenges set by the 2030A for the strategic and sustainable management of municipalities. 5) Define and model the planning and management stages, and analyse the possibilities of transferring these to different contexts.
The research questions we proposed are as follows: RQ1. What are the novelties that the 2030A framework brings to sustainable municipal management? RQ2. What stages do the new methodologies associated with collaborative, transdisciplinary and action research models involve for the grounds of municipal decision-making? RQ3. What criteria and quality indicators should be required from processes and instruments? RQ4. What are the most significant weaknesses and strengths of this new stage of municipal planning and management? RQ5. What viability and transfer possibilities do these new management models have in implementing them in different contexts?

Framework 2.1. The Agenda 2030 as planning and action frameworks
The 2030A proposes a framework for knowledge-based transformations to sustainable development that reconciles evidence and socio-political deliberations for accelerated action [20,21]: understanding systemic interactions; understanding competing development agendas; understanding transformations in concrete contexts.
Defining the term 'strategy' in the field of municipal management can be complicated because of the same complexity derived from the delimitation of the concept of management in local administration. The idea of strategic planning can be understood as the articulation of a set of operational elements aimed at establishing processes with the capacity for social and territorial transformation; processes that in the medium or long-term revert the conservation of ecosystems and/or in the improvement of the quality of life of citizens. In the fields of organizational management and business, every strategy involves establishing a work scheme; design an organized action protocol that facilitates interventions within a solid framework, which at the same time makes it possible to control external variables and factors that can influence the process, generating a competitive advantage that allows it to successfully remain in the market [22].
From this logic, we can consider municipal management as a typology of activity for municipal organizations whose priority activity is to define goals aimed at improving the quality of life and welfare of citizens in the territory they live, from approaches based on participation and democracy.
This last aspect is perhaps the main element of agreement amongst authors when conceptualizing the strategic elements in the field of public management, in opposition to their application within the business environment: those aspects that make mention of the idea of involvement and consensus and the need to jointly build plans that affect those involved in one way or another and that look to the future [23].
The new ESP models require citizen participation and leadership as instruments of change and improvement. The priorities and needs are identified, defined and planned from the consensus and unique interests of the various segments of citizenship, harmonizing demands of majorities and minorities, giving voice and a vote to all sectors of the population (from childhood, youths, the elderly, ethnic minorities, etc.). In this sense, 'the generation and support of small foci of social change in the field of environmental sustainability seems an immense field of opportunities, which has, among other advantages, the ability to: demonstrate that another way of doing things is possible, overcome mental obstacles and prejudices about alternative solutions, normalize or improve the image of models considered exotic, if not, marginal, and, amplify the positive effects of actions that have a moderate implication´ [24] (pp. [12][13]. Traditionally, Agendas 21 for local development (L21A) have been a clear example of these small plots of social and environmental change demanded by society today, even in spite of the discrepancies, controversies, resistance and frequent divorces that usually accompany any sphere of citizen intervention. Within the L21A processes, strategic and participatory planning acquires true meaning as a methodology of intervention and local transformation that has no reason for existence if it is not for citizen involvement and social leadership [25]. Currently, the 2030A and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are the frameworks of reference guiding municipal administrative institutions, ensuring that their management model is a sustainable and incorporates sustained strategic planning.
If we take as reference the 17 SDGs and 169 targets associated with them, we could affirm that the majority are linked to local competences regulated in the laws, norms and regulations in which the municipal management is structured. This reflection highlights how transcendental the application and adaptation of 2030A is for the City Councils to comply with the SDG.
While the 17 SDGs are not legally binding treaties, there is a political and ethical commitment that must be addressed by every Municipal Program of Action for the coming years up to 2030, being a strategic priority in the achievement of local goals and therefore meeting the goals of the SDG, in 4 of 23 terms of providing basic services and promoting endogenous, inclusive and sustainable territorial development.
This is a great challenge for City Councils at present and a pending issue. They are therefore responsible for the design of a Strategic Plan that connects their political action program with the requirements of 2030A and the SDG, taking citizenship leadership in the decision-making process as prescriptive, as well as the establishment of multi-level articulations that favour the fulfilment of all SDGs, whether or not they are municipal management competencies ( Figure 1). Along these lines, within the framework of Sustainability Science, a new emerging disciplinary field gains prominence in the form of what some authors call 'Global Urban Science', which plays an essential role in strategic planning processes and whose characteristics, according to the Nature Sustainability Network, are summarized in three key messages [13](p.2): 1) A new global science is needed for the urban era: there is a need to develop an 'urban science', not as a single science, but as a cross-cutting field of engagement across multiple disciplines; 2) Urban science needs a broad range of experts and information: the urban science community will need to include a wide range of experts, including non-academic actors such as NGOs, residents, consultancies, industry, international organizations, city networks, and the scholarly edifice of academic research; 3) An urbanizing planet calls upon the sciences and policymaking to rethink and enhance their relationship across complex systems: the pathways to reform and improvement of the role of science in the future of cities goes, inevitably, through multiple sectors and scales of governance.

AGENDA
International Framework of action

Citizen leadership
Participation and social involvement

Sustainability and local inclusion
Training process

SUSTAINABILITY OF LOCAL MANAGEMENT. LOCAL 2030 AGENDA
The new approaches to citizen leadership point to new-generation models of democracy based on deliberative approaches, which consists of a transition from "I" to "we" through the creation of participatory will. Therefore, when making vital decisions that affect everyone, those that defend the deliberative management values, above all the timing of the proposals, the exchange of arguments and justifications to endorse them, agreements between the parties about what commitments each acquires to carry out what corresponds to it and act together; while the defender of the aggregative policy generally affects the final decision, which is usually done through voting [26,27].
This new prism of local action brings to light the importance of framing the desirable scenarios towards which we direct the change in an explicit model that provides a base and gives ideological, political and social legitimacy to the interventions. If these values and principles govern the intervention, `the contribution of citizens (participation) and the position of the rulers (leadership) become key factors in determining the reasons, foundations and interests of a strategic plan´ [28], (p.45). In this case, these management plans become `Participatory Strategic Plans; where participation is considered to be a tool for citizen involvement in decision-making and in the assumption of responsibilities and commitments in the construction of their future; and leadership is seen as the new role that governments have to assume in order to be mediators between the interests of citizens and the final decisions of those who represent those interests [26,27,29].
In our case, by taking strategic planning to the design and implementation of sustainable municipal management models built out of the principles of deliberative democracy, we would be talking about a networked or relational municipal government model based on participation and political leadership [30,31,32]. The following diagram ( Figure 2) illustrates the different poles that can result from a combination of both aspects, marking as a favourable scenario for the elaboration of Strategic Plans those cases in which there is high participation and marked political leadership [33]: In general and, taking into account the four axes mentioned above, Participatory Strategic Planning applied to the development of sustainable municipal management models, is defined by four dimensions that govern its methodological process and its objectives, becoming an ideal method for the development of participatory processes at a municipal level (  This intervention methodology, in the case of municipal environmental management, favours the definition of future scenarios that, in this case, translates into city and territory management models adapted to demands and the starting situation, from an approach focused on consensus and citizen dialogue in decision-making.

Environmental Evaluation as a participation and planning tool
From the logic of the activities in Strategic Planning, the Strategic Environmental Evaluation (SEE), inspired by the proposals of the PAR (Participatory Action Research) [34] is one of the `most complete instruments for decision support on wide-ranging development initiatives with potential effects on the environment. At the same time, it is considered to be a process to integrate the concept of sustainability from the highest levels at which decisions about development models are taken´ [35](p.27).
This concept, in our field of work, gives meaning to the term strategic and action research planning. The SEE intends to serve to implement a sustainable local development process that integrates evaluation and decision-making at all stages of municipal management. Without forgetting the need to monetize the options of the environment as a source of local development and respect for natural cycles, ecosystems, spaces and species, this task stresses the role of environmental policy as an important branch, interrelated with local actions and not as a work area that is separate to general municipal policy so that it helps to promote an intelligent, harmonious and sustainable development.
Evaluation plays an essential role in this environmental planning as a scientific instrument that gives quality assurances to the decisions adopted [36]. The 2030A was developed through a largely political rather than a scientific process, the goals and targets-as well as the specific indicators developed to assess progress against these goals and targets-are formulated in a limited and somewhat inconsistent way [20]. The uniqueness of the environmental planning field requires the selection of proven evaluation models, inspired by methodologies validated in practice, built on bottom-up models [37,38] in which bottom-up participation is an essential requirement in a decision paradigm that places citizens at the heart of democratic decision-making processes, from the empowerment provided by the SEE [32] and specifically, the Participatory Action Research (PAR) [15,39] introduced at a time when undertaking an analysis of needs and prioritizing decisions on the DIAGNOSIS •To be a realistic and contextualized planning, the diagnosis of the starting point is essential.

LEADERSHIP
•Making the social sectors protagonists in the decision-making process as well as in the design and implementation of action plans is key to strengthening credibility and motivation in the process

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRATIC NETWORK
•Involve different actors and sectors in the process and decision making. actions to be undertaken strategically in the short, medium and long-term in the municipal and global context in which they develop as historical subjects. `Wicked´ sustainability problems, defined as problems that are multi-dimensional, appear intractable, and for which there is no one clear solution, are increasing in number and intensity [40,41]. These problems differ fundamentally from technical problems that can be isolated and controlled using standard scientific methodologies. The unique characteristics of knowledge production that can address complex sustainability problems were first defined by Gibbons and Nowtony in their formulation of `Mode 2´ knowledge, defined as: knowledge production that is applied, integrates multiple disciplines and stakeholders, is reflexive, and which offers novel ways to assess quality [42].
Experiments in science-policy collaboration at the local level are fundamental. Academia and local governments should take tangible steps towards joint investments for science-policy collaboration. `This includes suggested practical actions such as: City-regional and metropolitan science policy mechanisms, such as urban observatories', need to be taken seriously by both universities and local governments, but with the support of national governments and the UN system. Appoint academically-grounded `chief scientific advisors´ to local government to advise on evidence use in city policymaking. Include peer review processes within the production of major private sector and city network datasets, engaging in scholarly outputs as much as reports from these analyses, including clear outlines of methodologies´ [13] (p.5).
In the case of local environmental management, the SEE will make sense as long as it is part of the decision-making process for the definition of a strategic framework for participatory and consensual intervention on the road to sustainability. The environmental assessment will be more strategic the more directly it is associated with the decision-making process. To capture and materialise the SEE, it is necessary to take into account a series of conditions that will guide the process, among which we can highlight the following [35] (Figure 4): The SEE, therefore, is presented as a tool for participatory strategic planning in the field of local management and aims to be an instrument that favours an analysis of the impacts of planning in the territory and in the community. On the other hand, it is proposed as a work proposal to achieve the local environmental objectives that must be assumed by the local corporation as part of its management and its policy.
The SEE is part of the territorial planning processes as a strategy of impact assessment, compliance with environmental objectives and monitoring of policies and design of recommendations to be incorporated into management policies in a cyclical and continuous manner, based on the participation of citizens in decision making, in the search for consensus, negotiation and in the incorporation of alternatives to local political actions [35]. In short, these are some of the premises that must be taken into account to draw up a Strategic Plan: the need to develop rigorous evaluative research processes, implement PAR methodologies, apply change assessment instruments, promote tools for citizen participation and for the analysis of inclusive needs that involve all sectors of citizens, and mobilize municipal management actions from the bottom-up that democratize environmental decisions.

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (SEE)
Following this descriptive situational analysis of the potential of strategic planning in local environmental management addressed using the SEE's approaches, a case study is presented to validate the model advocated in this research, focused on a metropolitan area.

Methodological framework
Structuring a participatory strategic plan and implementing it across all its phases, requires a coordinated, dynamic and flexible process that favours citizen participation and decision-making taking as basis the search for consensus and the prioritization of needs. Community-engaged, actionoriented research approaches involve communities that are impacted by the issues being studied. Such approaches include the overlapping traditions of participatory action research and communitybased participatory research [43,44]. These processes manifest as a complex framework that requires continuous adjustments about negotiation and agreements, and re-adjustments around local management based on participatory and direct methodologies.
It is a model immersed in a structure that overcomes political-administrative management and favours transversal actions of citizen leadership across each of the stages into which it is divided. Reaching the balance between political action and social action is the essential ingredient that guarantees the success of this type of methodological structures based on teamwork, the search for consensus, the adoption of responsibilities and decision-making in the definition and launching of the strategies.
The model that we intend to validate with this action-research process following the logic of strategic planning and evaluation [45], advocates sustainable municipal management such as the proposal shown below ( Figure 5): Once the model is defined, the exemplification of each of these phases is complex. The research that we include in this article brings forward the framework used at the beginning of each of these phases, so it has been indispensable to carry out complex triangulation processes both at a level addressing the techniques and key agents and informants that have resulted in clues, suggestions, strengths and weaknesses in order to ultimately establish and extrapolate the results, to design quality criteria that we have deemed essential to defining a quality and sustainable municipal management model based on the philosophy of participatory strategic planning linked to compliance with 2030A and SDG.
As an example of this complex action-research process, of the implementation of a strategic planning process based on the processes of individual and community reflection that have been carried out throughout the investigation, we exemplify this complexity with the analysis resulting from the diagnostic phase of one of the indicators addressed in the investigation: `Citizen perception of environmental and social problems. Prioritization´.
From the presentation of these results, we address a discussion related to the fulfilment of objectives. There is a methodological reflection on the process followed through the research that will enable us to validate the proposed model from five basic elements that respond to the objectives and questions proposed at the beginning of the paper:  Suitability of the information collection instruments used and of their quality.
 Strengths of the model.  Weaknesses of the model.  Contribution of the model for the development of sustainable local management.  Feasibility and transfer possibilities to other contexts.

Instruments for data collection
To articulate this strategic framework, the instruments used for data collection are as follows (Table 1):

CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE
-Opinions and perceptions of citizens in environmental matters.
-Involve the population in municipal participation processes.
-Communicate the participatory environmental management process.
-Promote that this local management model is known by all citizens.
Section 1: environmental situation of the municipality. Section 2: local environmental management in the municipality Item criterion: Municipal environmental situation (in general) -For all population sectors from 12 years old. -Diagnostic phase: To correctly direct the actions and strategies of action and participation.

MONITORING COMMISSION
-Promote a process of collective reflection from the monitoring of actions. -Consolidate a platform for monitoring and evaluation of the local environmental management process developed. -Involve the population in decisionmaking processes in local management.
A control and evaluation body of the local environmental management process has been created. There have been different control sessions to ensure compliance with the actions.
Representatives of the different social groups in the municipalities studied participate in this commission.
It has been carried out during the diagnostic phase due to the relevance of this body throughout the process.

Description. Sample and Agents involved
The study has been carried out in a municipality in the metropolitan area of the city of Granada (Spain), located 7km from the capital, considered to be a "dormitory town" (linked to work in the capital), with approximately 20,000 inhabitants and whose main economic sources are agriculture and the service sector.
This study has generated a process of citizen reflection where all the key agents of the municipality have played a leading role as informants who have their own requirements. All citizens have been involved, diversifying the sample as shown in the following tables (Tables 2-7):   Table 5. Agents involved in the Citizen Participation Forums Table 6. Sample Letter to municipal political representatives

Analysis procedure
The analyses carried out on the information collected have been of a different nature depending on the technique used. We have followed a mixed methodology to analyze quantitative and qualitative information with software for data analysis and treatment: SPSS v.23 for the analysis of quantitative data, and Nudist Vivo v.10 for qualitative data.
With regard to the validity of the questionnaire, we highlight that the analysis of different documents related to the subject and other instruments used in previous studies and the consultation of a group of experts has allowed us to guarantee the validity of content; we have ensured the construct validity through a factorial analysis, and the criterial validity through the correlation of all the items of each of the blocks involved with the total of each of them (with the exception of itself), having, for the majority, obtained Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients statistically significant at alpha levels of .01 and to a lesser extent at .05.
For the calculation of the reliability of this questionnaire, we have used the internal consistency procedure. The results achieved in Cronbach's alpha per instrument and thematic blocks are satisfactory [47] ranging from .70 to .86 as shown in the following table (Table 8): Another indicator that supports this consideration is the presence of reliability coefficients of little or no gain, if not some loss, when we have eliminated, one-by-one and in various rounds, each of the items that made up each thematic block.
Regarding the qualitative information (discussion groups, citizen participation forums, letter to municipal political representatives, monitoring commission), we have based our analysis on the four quality criteria that need to be considered in the analysis of qualitative information (credibility, applicability, consistency, and neutrality) [48,49]: (i) Credibility: During the analysis process, conversations were held with participants in the study to corroborate the interpretations made based on their answers. (ii) Applicability or transferability: the study has been carried out in only one municipality of the province of Granada but instruments and results obtained can be applied in other contexts with similar characteristics. (iii) Consistency: we consider that similar results would be obtained if the study was to be replicated in other municipalities because the analysis has been carried out in a meticulous way from a process of triangulation of sources and techniques. (iv) Neutrality: the detailed description of the research process carried out indicated in this article shows that it has been a neutral and non-biased process.

Results
Next, we broadly present the most relevant results achieved after an analysis of the information collected through the different instruments used in the diagnostic phase for the indicator `Citizen perception of environmental and social issues. Prioritization´, with the dual purpose of: 1) defining the socio-environmental problems of the municipality from the citizen's perception, and; 2) establishing lines of action that allow us to justify the validation of the model presented in this article as lines of action and as a proposal for the development of sustainable management at a local level.

Citizen Opinion Questionnaire
To identify the socio-environmental problems from the perception of citizenship, a factorial analysis 1 of the answers given in the questionnaire has been undertaken in order to identify response patterns, or whether these are related across common dimensions. Through the analysis we have been able to identify five factors that, together, explain 48.26% of the total variance, with a first factor that explains 10.94% of it, and the rest that range between 7.96 and 10.75% of variance explained. The values achieved by the communalities are between .14 and .67, and indicate the acceptable representation that the items included in the scale have acquired.
Finally, Bartlett's sphericity test, with a value of 164.70 and a p = .000 and the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) sample adequacy measure, with a value of .814, allow us to state that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix [50]. Therefore, there are a number of significant high intercorrelations, since the value found in the Bartlett test is significantly high [51]. This, together with the value obtained in the KMO test, a meritorious value [52] and the value obtained by the determinant of the correlation matrix (R = .016) indicate that the data matrix is suitable for the factor analysis (Tables 9 and 10).

Monitoring commission
The monitoring commission has intended to be the participatory body that has guided and evaluated the process of diagnosis and implementation of the local environmental management model. This entails the presence of a relevant social representation to ensure that most of possible perspectives are present in the process, in order to approach a vision as integral and real as possible.
The following table shows the decisions made by this participation body (Table 11 and

Discussion Groups
The four discussion groups included councillors and technicians, farmers, women and young people. The results obtained make visible the problems detected by the participants across the different socio-environmental areas according to the importance given to each one (Tables 12-15):

Citizen Participation Forum
The problems detected in the different areas and their importance were also expressed by the citizens participating in the first Citizen Participation Forum (Table 16).

Letters to the council representatives
Children and adolescents also participated in this process through letters addressed to municipal representatives. An analysis of the 366 letters written has allowed us to prioritize the needs identified by these groups as shown in the following table (Table 17):

Discussion
Carrying out the socio-environmental diagnosis of a municipality from the citizen's perception held by the different agents of the community, requires a process of the triangulation of information, as well as synthesis and prioritization. Thus, the SWOT analysis and the triangulation of the information collected in the diagnostic phase through the various participatory instruments used, has allowed us to identify the most urgent and greatest priority needs, as shown in Figure 7: The problems addressed by the population living in this municipality through the different participation processes, have provided us with a generic vision of the environmental and social situations of the municipality studied, its limitations and is this that will enable us to subsequently develop action strategies that minimize existing needs.
Within each of the areas in which the needs and problems detected in the municipalities are grouped, there are first-order problems that need to be addressed during the next stage of the implementation of this management model: the action plan.
If we take into account the principles in which 2030A is framed, making that diagnosis and addressing environmental issues in an integral way means to address them from a double perspective: on the one hand, we must analyse the objective data of the reality of the environment (physical-environmental diagnosis) and its associated problems and, on the other, understand the perception and assessment that citizens make of it (participatory diagnosis) [1,2]. From this logic, the problems derived from citizen perception and assessment linked to the SDGs are summarized into the following broad categories (Figure 8): Finally, and in response to the objectives of the study, we can respond to them by addressing the results from a quadruple approach: Methodological reflection on the model:  The design and implementation of the participatory strategies presented in this study have enabled us to collect information on the citizen's perception of the environmental and social problems existing in the municipality studied, as well as possible proposals for improvement.
 Foster the participation of the population in decision-making related to local management in the environmental field.  Promote a process of personal and collective self-reflection that favours addressing any doubts and assumptions of responsibilities by the population in the process of developing a participatory local environmental management model endorsed by the principles of 2030A.
In the process of conducting a socio-environmental diagnosis for the implementation of this innovative local management model, there are lights that strengthen the process and shadows that weaken it: Strengths of the validated management model:  Allows gathering of broad perceptions of the population, facilitating the participation of all citizens in the process.  Facilitates initial contact with the population in order to consolidate much more complex structures of citizen participation.  Systematizes and structures procedures for collecting information that encourage citizen participation in municipal management.  Provides a formula for collective and individual reflection of the citizen in relation to their behaviours and attitudes within the global municipal structure.  Facilitates the knowledge of the premises of the 2030A and its application by the neighbourhood.  Favours the involvement of all those most representative in the municipality.

Weaknesses:
 Difficulty in ensuring the representativeness of the entire population and that the demands described are really those that exist and not just a reflection of individual issues.  Political opportunism conceived as occasional strategies of a circumstantial nature that are intended to merely meet political and economic targets from specific subsidies.  Risk of becoming decontextualized and discontinuous actions that do not facilitate results in the medium or long-term.  Lack of motivation and trust in these types of structures by the population, including political groups and the municipal technical group.  Compliance with expectations.

Contribution to Participatory Municipal Management and feasibility of application to other contexts:
Among the contributions of the municipal management model we supported in this study, and which can serve as a reference and be suitable for application in other contexts, we highlight:  Provides information for contextualized management.  Gives ground to the political and local management actions carried out, which enables a relevant degree of success and effectiveness.  Introduces the population to innovative processes of citizen participation and local development.  Consolidates reflective processes and continuous training in the development of sustainable actions.  Promotes the involvement of representative social sectors in the municipality in the decision-making process of municipal management.

Conclusions
Based on the learning and knowledge acquired throughout this study, we believe that the latter cannot conclude with only the validation of our model based on the results obtained, but that we should go one step further and convert these proposals for action into criteria that must be taken into account when considering a quality local environmental management model [53]. These criteria, which we define below and that seek to evaluate the quality of these management processes for each of its phases (according to the model outlined in Figure 5), arise from this process of continuous reflection that has been present across the work and is nourished and based on the conclusive data and results of this study (Table 18). The principles of 2030A and SDG have also been taken as a reference.  By 2050, 70% of the planet's population will be concentrated in large urban centres, and in 2100, this percentage will reach 85%. The great challenges of sustainability involve placing cities and metropolitan areas at the heart of the issue. Application of the principles of 2030A represents an important challenge in addressing these challenges related to the modernization of urban management models. Decisions about human mobility, car traffic, transportation, pollution, urban planning, urban infrastructure planning, collection, treatment and waste management, lighting, tourism, water supply, garden irrigation, maintenance of green spaces, etc., require models of intelligent decision making in which citizen participation is in the DNA of planning and management [53]. Leaning into participatory strategic action methodologies in management plans means betting on an intelligent, sustainable and networked government model that favours the harmony between the natural and artificial, that stimulates the balance between social, environmental, economic and political dimensions, aiming to improve the quality of life from dialogue, reflection and citizen involvement in the decision-making of local management from a global perspective. The technological instruments at the service of the SmartCity must facilitate a creative participatory management process of decision-making that is informed, consensual and grounded, which measures itself against taking advantage of the opportunities offered by the digitalization of a large number of processes in which the citizen can contribute and provide relevant information in realtime [54].

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.