We live in a rapidly urbanizing world where many cities are facing a housing affordability crisis. There is a shortage of all types of housing and a severe shortage of affordable housing in urban areas. Housing affordability is context sensitive and dependent on the type of development and the jurisdiction, however, housing cost burden is distributed unevenly across households of different income and ethnicity. Addressing the housing needs of different types of households—from families with children to the elderly, and especially low-income households—is important for the planning and development of cities.

There is an ongoing debate on the barriers to housing supply. Several studies have examined regulatory barriers that contribute to housing shortage. Some researchers contend that the strictness of land use regulations, limited availability of developable land, and environmental laws are correlated with high housing prices. Others have explained that non-regulatory barriers and challenges, such as community opposition to higher-density housing projects as well as the cost and availability of labor and construction materials, also contribute to housing affordability crisis. Advocacy groups assert that housing is a human right. Given this, how might we address the housing affordability crisis?

Proposals are invited for a thematic issue of Urban Planning, a peer-reviewed open access journal, to explore the theme of housing affordability crisis. Researchers could, for instance, examine the following types of questions: What are the causes and consequences of housing affordability crisis? How might state laws and local government policies address the problem? Contributions also could be based on case studies that examine housing development projects and related concerns of loss of sense of place, gentrification, and displacement as well as apprehensions of projects’ impact on traffic, environmental quality, property value, and neighborhood character.

The discussion about children as users of the city is even more urgent at this moment, since the experience of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic has showed very vividly how important public urban spaces are to all citizens, children in particular. The closing down of play-spaces brought about the realization that urban space needs to be reshaped giving children equal share. Streets, sidewalks, public spaces are the “fourth environment” for kids growing up and should be designed as such. In many cities around the world, emergency responses to the pandemic have included giving priority to children as users of open spaces. Indeed, the pandemic has made visible the importance of designing urban neighborhoods, in their entirety, with children in mind, and not only spaces specifically designed for children.

The quest for a truly “childhood city” (Karsten, 2002) is still quite elusive, but of extreme urgency, if we are to escape the present-day domestication of play, children’s growing addiction to screens, and the resulting impact on children’s physical and mental health as well as the alarming disconnection of children from nature. As urban designers, we need to address children as citizens with equal rights (if the premises of UNCRC are to be realized) and at the same time make cities more livable for all. To do this, we need a holistic approach, a multi-scale coordinated effort, from the macroscale, policy level to the organization of districts and neighborhoods and the physical design of streets, school areas, and open spaces. As urbanization rates continue to soar, humanity’s own existence and survival in the age of the Anthropocene depends on how children will relate to cities. If they experience them as friendly, welcoming, and nature-inclusive, they will love them as adults—and this is what, ultimately, urban design should aim for.

Contributors are asked to address (one of) the following questions:

• How do children experience the city?
• How safely and independently can they get around?
• Where can children play and gather? What is the role of play in the city?
• Are children’s needs and opinions taken into account in urban design? How can children participate in the design process?
• How can cities “use” children to their benefit to become more livable for all?

Both theoretical and case-study based approaches are welcome.

Urban shrinkage has affected an increasing amount of cities and towns in the past decades and has attracted increasing interest of urban studies scholars as well as urban policy-makers. Urban shrinkage can have several causes, but most often is rooted in structural economic crisis, resulting in population decline, vacant and decaying buildings, and underused infrastructure. While some cities manage to return to a growth path after shrinkage, most may have to prepare for further shrinkage or stabilisation instead. Generally, the urban shrinkage discourse advocates a departure from the dominant growth paradigm, and policy advice focuses on adapting to shrinkage rather than a forced attempt to return to growth (e.g., Hospers, 2014; Mallach et al., 2017; Wiechmann & Bontje, 2015). However, this is easier said than done: both academics and policy-makers still struggle with how to revitalise shrinking cities sustainably in the absence of growth (Liu, 2020). Yet, given the current trends of urbanization and demographic change, this issue has global relevance (Jarzebski et al., 2021).

In the early 21st century, the “limits to growth” debate of the 1970s revived under the radical header of “degrowth.” The degrowth movement aims for fundamental changes in economic and political systems and societies to reduce resource and energy use and achieve a sustainable society. Degrowth offers a critical perspective on the exploitative and destructive nature of the global capitalist system. Instead, societies should prioritise social and ecological well-being (D’Alisa et al., 2014; Kallis et al., 2018). So far, the main protagonists in the degrowth debate are academics and environmental activists, but degrowth has yet to become a prominent discourse in urban planning. According to Lehtinen (2018, p. 44), growth is still the primary objective in urban planning, though in a highly selective form: favouring concentrations of population and consumption. Several recent publications call for developing a degrowth research and policy agenda in urban planning (e.g., Brokow-Loga & Eckardt, 2020; Ferreira & Von Schönfeld, 2020; Savini, 2021; Xue, 2021). However, concrete examples of degrowth-based urban planning strategies, let alone their practical implementation, are still lacking.

Urban shrinkage and degrowth thinking seem to have much to offer to each other. Could degrowth be an inspiring and guiding new urban planning paradigm for the sustainable development of shrinking cities? Could shrinking cities be relevant testing grounds to make degrowth’s idealistic principles work in planning practice? This thematic issue aims to bring together novel empirical contributions taking stock of first attempts to connect degrowth to urban shrinkage, exploring in how far this potential unfolds in practice and what obstacles these attempts face. Contributions are asked to address at least one of the following questions:

 - When, why, and how do cities and local planning departments implement post-growth approaches? In how far do these approaches reflect degrowth principles? And can the results be considered sustainable?

- When, why, and how do degrowth ambitions get embedded in broader strategic frameworks for urban planning?

- What obstacles do urban planners and policymakers encounter when trying to mobilize degrowth approaches (Lamker, 2021; Lamker & Schulze Dieckhoff, in press)?

- How would a degrowth strategy for a shrinking city look like? And how useful are recent urban degrowth-based planning proposals for shrinking cities?

- Are there examples of degrowth-like practices or implemented degrowth-like proposals in shrinking cities, and what can we learn from them about the potential of degrowth principles?

References:

Brokow-Loga, A., & Eckardt, F. (2020). Postwachstumsstadt. Konturen einer solidarischen Stadtpolitik. Oekom.

D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (Eds.). (2014). Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. Routledge.

Ferreira, A., & von Schönfeld, K. (2020). Interlacing planning and degrowth scholarship. A manifesto for an interdisciplinary alliance. disP: The Planning Review, 56(1), 53-64.

Hospers, G. J. (2014). Policy responses to urban shrinkage: From growth thinking to civic engagement. European Planning Studies, 22(7), 1507-1523.

Jarzebski, M. P., Elmqvist, T., Gasparatos, A., Fukushi, K., Eckersten, S., Haase, D., Goodness, J., Khoshkar, S., Saito, O., Takeuchi, K., Theorelll, T., Dong, N., Kasuga, F., Watanabe, R., Sioen, G. B., Yokohari, M., & Pu, J. (2021). Ageing and population shrinking: Implications for sustainability in the urban century. npj Urban Sustainability, 1(1), Article 17.

Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research on degrowth. Annual Reviews of Environment and Resources, 43, 291-316.

Lamker, C. W. (2021). Becoming a post-growth planner. Rooilijn. https://www.rooilijn.nl/artikelen/becoming-a-post-growth-planner

Lamker, C. W., & Schulze Dieckhoff, V. (in press). Becoming a post-growth planner: Inner obstacles to changing roles. In F. Savini, A. Ferreira, & K. C. von Schönfeld (Eds.), Post-growth planning: Cities beyond the market economy. Routledge.

Lehtinen, A. A. (2018). Degrowth in city planning. Fennia, 196(1), 43-57.

Liu, R. (2020). Strategies for sustainability in shrinking cities: Frames, rationales and goals for a development path change. Nordia Geographical Publications, 49(5), 49-74.

Mallach, A., Haase, A., & Hattori, K. (2017). The shrinking city in comparative perspective: Contrasting dynamics and responses to urban shrinkage. Cities, 69, 102-118.

Savini, F. (2021). Towards and urban degrowth: Habitability, finity and polycentric autonomism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(5), Article 0308518X20981391.

Wiechmann, T., & Bontje, M. (2015). Responding to tough times: Policies and planning strategies in shrinking cities. European Planning Studies, 23(1), 1-11.

Xue, J. (2021). Urban planning and degrowth: A missing dialogue. Local Environment. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1867840

Housing design is greatly informed by social and cultural norms or expectations around home use and everyday life. This thematic issue examines the interrelationships between social norms, cultural expectations, home use, everyday life, and lived experiences to technical housing standards and design outcomes. It is interested in how a socio-technical discourse can produce new insights, evidence, or analytical frameworks for housing and design research studies.

During the first half of the twentieth century, the use and space of homes were extensively studied, with analysis frequently combining design research, qualitative, and statistical methods. These studies became formative to technical standards, design companions, and typical design solutions that determined the way housing is designed and delivered. For example, graphical and dimensional methods of assessing plan layouts based on furniture and movement requirements are still in use today as part of space standards to regulate minimum dwelling sizes, dimensions, and functionality.

Interactions between norms and standards are contextual to different periods, regions, and cultures. How domestic practices and uses become normative and translated into technical standards can thus greatly vary. While housing priorities and lifestyles continuously change, significant historical events have often acted as a catalyst to long-term transformations in housing policy, design, and expectations. The COVID-19 pandemic and its lived experience at home is such an event, which has profoundly challenged existing notions of domesticity and dwelling functionality or usability. World War II and post-war public housing programmes or the fall of communism and the rise of housing marketisation are other historical examples.

This issue invites papers that can advance a new socio-technical discourse through a study of technical housing standards and the lived experience or changes in socio-cultural norms that challenge them.

In recent years, social scientists have paid increasing attention to the diversity of newcomers´ arrival processes, observing an increasing heterogeneity of people who migrate, with different aspirations, temporal perspectives, and political responses. Spatial settings where arrival takes place vary from diverse urban spaces with longstanding experiences of arrival, to more suburban or rural spaces which are often less equipped with arrival-related infrastructures, to (often peripheral) camps (Bovo, 2020). Arrival infrastructuring can be understood as a mediating process which connects individuals (and their social, economic, and cultural capital) with places and societal contexts of arrival. Arrival is shaped by a variety of policies, actors, and places that enhance, channel, or hinder how people gain a foothold in the city (Meeus et al. 2019).

Current research on arrival infrastructures focusses on both structural conditions of arrival as well as newcomers’ agency in shaping arrival processes, illustrating the close interconnectedness of formal, non-formal, and informal arrival infrastructures (Fawaz, 2017). The lens of in/formality is a fruitful perspective to grasp arrival infrastructures and the dynamic interplay and blurry lines between different actors, including state, market, and citizens. Moving beyond the formal–informal dichotomy, this thematic issue seeks to explore the practices, negotiations, and interconnections between different (migrant and non-migrant) actors involved in arrival infrastructuring.

We invite articles that explore the diversity of in/formal practices related to arrival and the ongoing negotiations between more or less institutionally embedded actors. We specifically encourage contributions exploring the various and fluid roles individuals involved in arrival processes play. Articles can, for example, address some of the following questions:

-              Migrant agency in the context of arrival: What role do migrants themselves play in the (co-) production of arrival infrastructures and in shaping how different in/formal structures play out and gain relevance?

-              Between solidarity and exploitation: Which forms of support evolve in the light of commercialisation, privatization, and drawbacks of welfare states?

-              Street-level bureaucracy: How do institutionally embedded actors and their daily routines and practices shape newcomers´ arrival?

-              Transformative engagement: How can urban planners, NGOs, and state representatives deal with urban in/formalities and facilitate arrival?

We welcome theoretical and empirical articles applying methodological approaches such as ethnographic research, mapping, and mixed methods. We invite contributions from across the spectrum of disciplinary fields and/or professional practice. Submissions covering case studies in both the Global North and South may focus on a specific city/country or be comparative in nature.

References:

Bovo, M. (2020). How the presence of newly arrived migrants challenges urban spaces: Three perspectives from recent literature. Urban Planning, 5(3), 23–32.

Fawaz, M. (2017). Planning and the refugee crisis: Informality as a framework of analysis and reflection. Planning Theory, 16(1), 99–115.

Meeus, B., Arnaut, K., & Van Heur, B. (Eds.). (2019). Arrival infrastructures: Migration and urban social mobilities. Palgrave Macmillan.

Accordingly, this issue of Urban Planning challenges the common perception of neoliberalism as a post-Fordist Keynesian phenomenon. It asks to frame the concept of post-socialist neoliberalism, focusing on the transition from a state-led (or party-led) economy to a market-led one while examining how this influenced the formation of regions, cities, and buildings. We invite scholars interested in developing the framework of post-socialist neoliberalism through place-based analyses of market-oriented urban development and architecture in various global contexts. Authors are encouraged to present research that challenges the conventional understanding of neoliberalism, illustrating the unique circumstances of post-socialism and the manner in which it influences not only urban spaces, but also transnational landscapes, individual buildings, and dwelling units.

References:

Curtis, A. (2021). Can’t get you out of my head [BBC mini-series]. BBC. https://thoughtmaybe.com/cant-get-you-out-of-my-head

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2013). Neoliberal urbanism redux? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 1091-1099.

Rolnik, R. (2019). Urban warfare: Housing under the empire of finance. Verso.

Cities act as the territorial interfaces between social and planetary transformations. They are the centre for discussing, planning, and implementing climate (mitigation/adaptation) and energy (PV, hydrogen, etc.) transitions.

In this thematic issue, we aim to shed light on how these processes of transformation are dealt in so-called “ordinary” cities. The term “ordinary” cities has been suggested by urban theorist Jennifer Robinson (2005) to highlight the importance of studying urbanization processes in out-of-the centre, small- and medium-sized cities (e.g., in the Arctic and the Global South) that may have different conditions and capacities in dealing with the ensuing urban transitions.

Today, these ordinary towns are facing the massive challenge to transition to carbon-free/climate adaptive/positive energy cities in 30 or less years and meet the international obligations their respective countries have signed up to (e.g., Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement). Also, it is in ordinary towns where most of the world population lives and where the biggest impact of the abovementioned transitions will be accrued from.

As such, we aim to push for “ordinary” approaches to urban planning vis-à-vis climate, energy, and social challenges for harnessing diverse strategies to deal with socio-urban transformations. We welcome theoretically-informed, empirical, and comparative contributions of diverse methodological or ontological foundations on any of the following themes and questions:

- Which (new) capacities, relationships, and resources are present in “ordinary” cities in regard to climate and energy transitions?

- How do new forms of (collaborative) governance, such as co-design and living labs, play out in “ordinary cities”?

- How do “ordinary” cities translate (inter)national obligations and treaties to their urban governance?

- How does access to climate-proof infrastructures and positive energy cities play out along different dimensions, such as gender, ethnicity, and class, in “ordinary” cities?

- How can new inter- and trans-disciplinary methods help to better understand the challenges and opportunities as well as planning and managing the climate and energy transitions in “ordinary cities”?

Climate change and its far-reaching consequences have emerged as a paramount concern demanding our attention for the development of robust and resilient infrastructures (IPCC, 2014). Across the globe, urban centres grapple with escalating temperatures, surging sea levels, flooding and urban inundations, and severe weather extremes—all unequivocally attributed to climate change (C40 Cities, 2020; Montanya & Valera, 2016). Consequently, the very sustainability, resilience, longevity, functionality, and efficiency of urban infrastructures are jeopardized (Artur & Hilhorst, 2012; OECD, 2018).

Urban regions are progressively bearing the brunt of climate change, manifesting perilous consequences for the functionality and durability of existing infrastructure systems. Thus, a compelling argument emerges: the imperative to craft sustainable, resilient infrastructure employing innovative methods facilitated by smart technologies, fortifying urban environments to confront and adapt to the exigencies imposed by climate change (OECD, 2018).

Resilient infrastructure entails a dedicated focus on endowing infrastructure systems with the capability to withstand and rebound from the stresses and shocks ensuing from assorted challenges, all while remaining sustainable and functional (Holling, 1973, 1986). Smart technologies, including information communication technology, Internet of Things, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, represent potent tools to forge and create intelligent, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure. These technologies can simultaneously serve to monitor, control, manage, and optimize the performance of urban infrastructure. This symbiosis proffers frameworks and methodologies for the planning, development, construction, and management of urban infrastructure in the wake of climate change, thereby safeguarding the long-term existence and viability of urban habitats.

The thematic issue extends an invitation to explore the multifaceted dimensions of smart, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure. It beckons an examination of the dynamic interplay between urban planning, infrastructure development, smart technology, and climate change with the overarching goal of fostering the sustainability and resilience of infrastructure. In this context, the issue welcomes contributions in the form of original research, reviews, and case studies, encompassing various facets of the theme, including but not limited to:

• Climate change-responsive urban infrastructure planning and design.
• Integration of smart technology in the development, construction, management, and optimization of urban infrastructure functions, augmenting resilience.
• Resilience in urban mobility, water, energy systems, and communication in the face of climate-induced disruptions.
• Retrofitting of existing, vulnerable, and unsustainable infrastructure.
• Utilization of smart/advanced materials, including nanomaterials, for the construction and development of diverse urban infrastructures.
• Frameworks for policy, governance, and adaptation, including citizen participation and responsiveness, to meet the challenges posed by climate change.
• Showcase of case studies and best practices illustrating successes in smart and resilient urban infrastructure planning and development projects aimed at countering the challenges of climate change.
• Advanced and innovative methodological approaches.

References:

Artur, L., & Hilhorst, D. (2012). Everyday realities of climate change adaptation in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 529–536.

C40 Cities. (2020). The future we don't want: How climate change could impact the world's greatest cities.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In P. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31–44). National Academy of Engineering.

IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.

Montanya, C. N., & Valera, P. (2016). Climate change and its impact on the incarcerated population: A descriptive review. Social Work in Public Health, 31, 348–357.

OECD. (2018). Climate-resilient infrastructure: Policy perspectives (OECD Environment Policy Paper No. 14).

The United Nations' 2030 Agenda, with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), plays a key role in urban sustainability. Cities around the world are using the SDGs as a framework to implement a more sustainable form of urban development. However, SDGs have been criticised for their lack of transformative potential, the difficulty of measuring implementation, as well as their reliance on voluntary action and their alignment with economic growth. Based on existing experiences in cities, this thematic issue takes a critical stance on local implementations of the SDGs and seeks contributions on lessons learned, existing problems, as well as indications for the future design of global sustainability agendas from a city perspective. In this way, the thematic issue aims to contribute to the ongoing debates on the post-2030 agenda. Contributions to the thematic issue may address questions such as the usefulness of global policy agendas for promoting local sustainability in general, the limitations of sustainability indicators and monitoring systems, accountability in urban development and planning, and whether innovations such as new forms of governance can support the 2030 Agenda and its successor. For this thematic issue, we are looking for contributions from different geographical backgrounds and theoretical approaches, as well as case studies and comparative work.

Food environments are the collective physical, economic, digital, policy, and socio-cultural conditions that influence food and beverage choices. They are directly linked to diets and health outcomes such as overweight, obesity, and noncommunicable diseases.

Food environments are complex and, in recent years, economic, welfare, and technological developments have increased this complexity. The Covid-19 pandemic led to record levels of food waste in wealthier countries, due to retail closures, supply chain shocks, stockpiling, and the logistical challenges of redistributing food. The economic aftermath of the pandemic has contributed to a cost-of-living crisis which has further accelerated the growth of the charity food sector, and food banks in particular, as they become an evermore established feature of food and welfare landscapes. Greater levels of inequality and falls in income have had a negative impact on diet, with households left reliant on cheap, filling, processed foods. Against this backdrop of crises and inequality, the digitalization of food environments is becoming a central issue in public health, yet little is known about this emerging field. A variety of landscape metaphors including food deserts, food swamps, and food brownfields have been deployed to provide a critical lens for moving beyond a sole focus on retail outlets and towards pathologizing food environment failures.

All these factors motivate us to draw upon collective expertise in these fields for a thematic issue and provide an overview of current debates and evidence.

Potential topics include but are not limited to:

•             Digital food environments

•             Food insecurity and charitable food aid

•             Conceptualizing and measuring food environments

•             The impact of Covid-19 on food environments

•             Disruptions to food systems and environments

Representative of the growing awareness of pressing social, political, planning, and environmental issues in the food context, such as sustainable and fair food system design, is the thematic boom around the research field of food geographies. They open a critical view on current food production, preparation, and consumption relations in urban contexts from a geographical perspective and integrate also decolonial, feminist, and intersectional approaches. The shift of food policy to the urban level forms one of many solutions to current debates on the negative impacts and social injustices of food production, consumption, and waste.

By signing the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact in 2015, hundreds of cities recognized the importance of food as a significant urban system and its necessary socio-ecological transition(s) for achieving urban sustainability goals. In this context, public catering (food provided in public municipal entities) can be seen as ‘leverage point’ for transitions toward sustainable food systems. Similarly, civil society initiatives, such as food policy councils, demand for democratic participation in the decision-making processes on local food systems. Also, they call for ‘food justice’ in the sense of overcoming postcolonial power relations in urban foodscapes that led to exclusions from access to fresh, healthy food for disadvantaged social groups due to interlinked factors, such as class, gender, race, and age.

The aim of this thematic issue is to discuss the importance of food geographies for the research of social-ecological transition processes of the food system for a sustainable city. Hereby, the field of food geographies with its methodological approaches at the interface of different disciplines is to be critically assessed and new interdisciplinary perspectives are to be opened up.

What does it mean for city planners and designers to shape places through and with time? The 2020 pandemic restrictions helped re-introduce Carlos Moreno’s 15-minute-city concept of a chrono-urbanism; however, notions of temporal planning have deeper roots. Christopher Alexander’s 2003 Nature of Order series highlighted the importance of time and geometry for unfolding appropriate built form complexity. Kevin Lynch’s 1961 classic Image of the City and What Time Is This Place? (1972) highlighted planning as a temporal art, distinct from other temporal arts such as music, and his broad characterisation of city types in Theory of Good City Form (1981) identified three epochs of city form—the Cosmic city, the Organic city, and the Mechanical city—as representing successively dominant, spatiotemporal paradigms from the cosmological and societal to the scientific.

Time is implicated in planning’s capacity to address societal needs and challenges. Further, the socio-spatial structures and practices in Global South cities, for example, have distinctive, temporal narratives, which remain underexplored in mainstream planning discourses of alternative city imaginaries. So, this is an appropriate juncture to reflect upon seemingly neutral technical assumptions underlying varied approaches to urbanism. Which temporalities have societies producing distinctive city forms espoused? How might currently dominant, linear-temporal modes be influencing mainstream land-use/spatial planning and design practices? What implications do contemporary digital modes have for education, praxis, resilient 15-minute-cities, or ‘smart’ future-city visions?

This thematic issue is concerned with concepts, practices, and implications of time and the role of spatiotemporal perceptions and knowledges in cities, and/or their planning and design—highlighting these as implicit tools or frameworks, underlying identities, and forms of urbanism, from antiquity to the medieval, modernist, and contemporary eras—across a variety of localities and scales. It explores what, if any, cultural implications such analyses might have, e.g., decentring and potentially decolonising indigenous knowledges and enabling diverse temporalities to be identified and deployed in urban planning and design.

Consequently, this issue asks what lessons and possibilities a greater awareness and more explicit treatment of the temporal dimension might offer cities, planners, and designers, in addressing complex contemporary challenges from climate change and public health to place-shaping, spatial justice, and digital/virtual urbanisms.

We invite papers addressing a range of temporal perspectives including, but not limited to the following:

• To what extent have societies associated with specific city forms addressed time as either cyclical, linear, or structured in other ways? How were indigenous ontologies or knowledge bases embedded in genius-loci/senses of place? And what lessons may these suggest for re-integrating cultural values into urban planning?
• How are modern modes of tracking, recording, and mediating time—embedded in current approaches to pedagogy and praxis, underlying current or emerging challenges in either; policymaking, zoning, or urban ‘regeneration/renewal’ practices—driving innovations in socio-environmental mapping or monitoring tools?
• Which benefits and/or problems have contemporary digital/virtual modes and temporal representations conferred upon everyday practices or upon elements of stakeholder praxis, such as visioning, and community consultation, including capacities to go beyond participation into co-production of outcomes?
• What might be the contribution of a temporal perspective in avoiding the slow and out-of-sight violence created by toxic geographies/non-economic urban loss?
• Are current 15-20-minute ‘chrono-urbanism’ perspectives likely to deliver resilience for public health and other emergencies, or do they risk valorising the dominant linear temporal mode and its inherent limitations?
• How could the inclusion of diverse temporalities, forgotten and hidden spatiotemporal narratives from the Global South aid the development of alternative theories, tools, practices, and forms?
• What are the implications or risks of prevailing temporal visions for ‘smart’/future-cities, and potentials for alternative temporalities to better ensure achievement of citizen-led, rather than technology-led, outcomes?

As a tool serving other disciplines of enquiry, artificial intelligence (AI) comes of age in the first decades of the 21st century. AI offers the potential of a potent discovery, design, and analysis paradigm for questions in urban planning. For instance, AI algorithms generate large-scale city models from point clouds, and machine learning predict scenarios for resilient urban environments. This thematic issue raises a forum for cross-disciplinary discourse at the intersection of urban planning and AI. It will discuss emerging use cases in the urban planning practice, and the relevant AI techniques being used and developed, and articulate challenges and opportunities for urban planning in the age of AI.

This thematic issue looks specifically at two aspects of this intersection: AI for urban planning, where existing AI techniques are applied to questions of interest for UP scholars; and AI in urban planning, where (UP and other) scholars raise new challenges for AI or develop new methods in AI. Topics of interest include, without being limited to, AI for and in:

• Land-use planning
• Environmental planning
• Smart and sustainable mobility
• Energy efficiency; community engagement
• Safety, security, and resilience
• Multi-actor systems and multi-stakeholder deliberation
• Explainable AI
• Data, knowledge, and workflows
• Ethical, justice, and legal issues

Contributions to the thematic issue are welcomed from researchers and practitioners who identify with communities such as urban planning, built environment or environmental geography, or AI communities (e.g., machine learning, knowledge representation, natural language technologies, multi-agent systems), or situate themselves with a multi-disciplinary lens.

In recent times, people and communities around the world have faced numerous global crises, leading to increased expectations for urgent action from governments, industries, and civil society. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 global objectives, were designed to address key challenges, such as poverty eradication, sustainable cities and communities, and reduced inequalities, to create a better and more sustainable future for all. Aligned with the UN SDGs, this call for contributions to a thematic issue of the Urban Planning journal seeks to advance participatory planning approaches and methods exploring connections between planning and the climate emergency. Its key goal is to demonstrate the diversity of responses and contributions from participatory planning and design in addressing the UN SDGs.

Concurrently, the adoption of smart city technologies by businesses and city administrations aims to optimise resources and enhance public governance. However, these predominantly techno-centric and top-down approaches often overlook crucial social, civic, and environmental factors, prioritising urban contexts while neglecting rural areas. To achieve the SDGs, it is crucial to shift the focus from solely “smart” technologies to participatory planning involving meaningful community engagement and collaboration with stakeholders from the early design stages to project completion. By leveraging information and communication technology, participatory planning and design can foster a sense of shared ownership, social responsibility, and investment in sustainable development for cities, regions, and rural communities.

By embracing participatory planning and design, we can collectively strive for inclusive and sustainable urban development, promoting social equity, economic prosperity, and environmental stewardship. However, participatory planning practice comes with challenges, and this thematic issue hopes to curate a diverse collection of articles that report on both challenges and opportunities.

The impact of climate change is one of the key challenges cities are confronting around the world (Chantillon et al., 2021). Consequently, cities have been taking the lead in developing adaptation and resilience strategies (Mehryar et al., 2022). However, such adaptation requires innovative approaches and an understanding of the governance context where they take place (Casiano Flores et al., 2020, 2021). Within these circumstances, co-creation practices have gained significant attention as effective governance strategies for harnessing local expertise and insights to develop innovative solutions (Torfing et al., 2019). Co-creation refers to the collaborative process between public and private actors in solving a shared public problem or task. This involves exchanging various resources to co-initiate, co-design, and/or co-implement visions, strategies, policies, regulatory frameworks, or technological solutions (Hofstad et al., 2022).

This thematic issue aims to explore the intersection of co-creation practices and emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, virtual reality/augmented reality, and the Internet of Things, in addressing climate change adaptation in urban planning and management. Despite the growing interest in co-creation research, its integration with emerging technologies remains underdeveloped (Rodriguez Müller et al., 2021; Tan & Rodriguez Müller, 2023), limiting our understanding of its challenges and benefits for climate change adaptation in cities. This thematic issue seeks to fill this gap by shedding light on the interplay between emerging technologies and co-creation processes and providing insights into effective approaches, good practices, and cautionary experiences that can facilitate effective climate change responses in cities.

To contribute to this thematic issue, we invite empirical studies that focus on co-creation with emerging technologies to develop and implement strategies, policies, services, and infrastructure aimed at addressing climate challenges in cities. Potential research topics for this thematic issue include, but are not limited to, the following questions:

• How can emerging technologies support co-creation to achieve climate neutrality of (smart) cities by 2050?
• What are the challenges that co-creation with digital technologies for climate change adaptation can face and how can they be overcome?
• What are the ethical considerations and implications of co-creation processes with emerging technologies in urban climate governance?
• How can emerging technologies enhance the monitoring, evaluation, and feedback mechanisms of co-creation initiatives for climate change adaptation in cities?
• What are the potential synergies and trade-offs between digital co-creation and existing governance structures for climate change adaptation in cities?
• What are the barriers and enablers for successful implementation of co-creation initiatives with emerging technologies in urban climate change adaptation?
• To what extent do co-creation processes with emerging technologies lead to the adoption and implementation of sustainable policies and practices for climate change adaptation in cities?
• How can hybrid co-creation approaches, combining online and offline tools and methodologies, effectively leverage emerging technologies to address climate challenges in cities?

References:

Casiano Flores, C., Tan, E., Buntinx, I., Crompvoets, J., Stöcker, C., & Zevenbergen, J. (2020). Governance assessment of the UAVs implementation in Rwanda under the fit-for-purpose land administration approach. Land Use Policy, 99, Article 104725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104725

Casiano Flores, C., Tan, E., & Crompvoets, J. (2021). Governance assessment of UAV implementation in Kenyan land administration system. Technology in Society, 66, Article 101664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101664

Chantillon, M., Casiano Flores, C., Crompvoets, J., Sallano, M., Eiras Antunes, M., Garcia Barron, M., Barroca, J., Vicente, P., Vaz Raposo, A., & Sidique, G. (2021). Proposal for a European Interoperability Framework for Smart Cities and Communities (EIF4SCC). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2799/816559

Hofstad, H., Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., & Vedeld, T. (2022). Designing and leading collaborative urban climate governance: Comparative experiences of co‐creation from Copenhagen and Oslo. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1984

Mehryar, S., Sasson, I., & Surminski, S. (2022). Supporting urban adaptation to climate change: What role can resilience measurement tools play? Urban Climate, 41, Article 101047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101047

Rodriguez Müller, A. P., Casiano Flores, C., Albrecht, V., Steen, T., & Crompvoets, J. (2021). A scoping review of empirical evidence on (digital) public services co-creation. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), Article 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11040130

Tan, E., & Rodriguez Müller, A. P. (2023). Paths to citizens-controlled coproduction: The use of blockchain technology in digital coproduction. Public Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2218388

Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057

Walkability has emerged as a key focus of multi-disciplinary research, linked to the aims of reversing car-dependence and re-enabling walking as a healthy, environmentally sustainable and sociable mode of mobility. While often conflated with actual walking, etymologically walkability refers to the capacity for walking enabled by the built environment. It has been linked to the key neighbourhood-scale morphological properties of access, density, and mix, as well as micro-scalar elements of the street section, such as public/private interfaces, footpaths, and landscaping. Yet none of these attributes can be reduced to a simple measure, nor are these separable from the natural conditions of topography or climate. The multiplicity of interrelations between these various factors is what defines the overall urban design quality.

This thematic issue will present a collection of articles engaging with the conundrum posed by the imperative for urban codes leading to the formation of walkable environments, and the intrinsic limitations of reducing such a complex spatio-temporal concept to a single index or metric. How can walkability be operationalised in a non-reductionist way? What research methods can capture spatial properties linked to walkability? Which urban codes can be effective in enhancing walkability and what are their limitations? How do walkable environments emerge informally? What are the unintended outcomes of formal codes for walkability? The issue will include articles contributing to urban theory, research methods, and planning practice, advancing understandings of walkability.

Current guidelines of urban development (e.g., EU Urban Agenda, The New Leipzig Charter) in western economies (e.g., the US, EU, Australia) have shifted their focus from functionally separated areas within cities towards integrated, sustainable, and mixed-used urban areas. One significant component of these efforts in the economic realm is the resurgence of “the productive city,” where urban production/manufacturing within local economies at the district level (e.g., neighborhood, quarter) have returned to these spatial settings and accordingly gained importance in planning, as is reflected, for example, in the guiding principle of the city of short distances or the compact city. These trends have recently been accelerated by the pandemic, the polarization of global trade, and the associated vulnerability of global production networks.

Various economic activities (urban agriculture, industries, services) are conceivable in the “productive city.” However, this thematic issue attempts to highlight urban production/manufacturing as tangible manifestations embedded in their local settings because they are conflict-ridden, emanate distinctive spatial characteristics, and require complex planning processes. Therefore, we call for empirical case studies of such local embedded economies with urban production/manufacturing activities that are predominantly situated at the district level. These activities can relate to high-tech (e.g., Industry 4.0) but also to low-tech and high-touch industries (e.g., crafts, furniture). Our principal interest rests on programs, projects, networks, or initiatives of communal, family, and/or small and medium urban production/manufacturing (collectives); moreover, studies that deal with novel municipal and/or non-state governance, planning, and promotion measures are welcome. All initiatives could emphasize—but are not limited to—constellations of resident actors relying on mix of uses, a neighborhood character, curation, low-emission and sustainability, specific settings and utilization of the built environment, or local value chains.

Suggested literature:

Blakely, E. J., & Leigh, N. G. (2013). Planning local economic development. SAGE.

BMI. (2020). The New Leipzig charter. https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/eu-presidency/gemeinsame-erklaerungen/new-leipzig-charta-2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

Ferm, J., Panayotopoulos-Tsiros, D., & Griffiths, S. (2021). Planning urban manufacturing, industrial building typologies, and built environments: Lessons from inner London. Urban Planning, 6(3), 350–367.

Gärtner, S., & Meyer, K. (2023). Die Produktive Stadt. (Re-) Integration der Urbanen Produktion [The productive city. (Re-) Integration of urban production]. Springer.

Grodach, C., & Gibson, C. (2019). Advancing manufacturing?: Blinkered visions in US and Australian urban policy. Urban Policy and Research, 37(3), 279–293.

Harrison, J. (2014). The rise of the non-state ‘place-based’ economic development strategy. Local Economy, 29(4/5), 453–468.

Henn, S., Behling, M., & Schäfer, S. (Eds.). (2020). Lokale Ökonomie-Konzepte, Quartierskontexte und Interventionen [Local economy concepts, neighbourhood contexts and interventions]. Springer.

Lane, R. N., & Rappaport, N. (Eds.). (2020). The design of urban manufacturing. Routledge.

Mistry, N., & Byron, J. (2011). The federal role in supporting urban manufacturing. Brookings Institution.

Pike, A., Marlow, D., McCarthy, A., O’Brien, P., & Tomaney, J. (2015). Local institutions and local economic development: The Local Enterprise Partnerships in England, 2010–. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(2), 185–204.

For well over a decade, everyday urban life has been shaped by neoliberal austerity policies that affect everyday caring practices in both private and institutional contexts (Gabauer et al., 2022; Lawson, 2007; Theodore, 2020). However, practices of care are not only part of individual survival; they are also key elements of urbanity and of lived social day-to-day experiences in public spaces. Particularly in times of multiple societal crises, individual and communal quality of life are under severe stress. Therefore, caring communities and the resulting urban cultures of care are becoming an increasingly important element of social justice and cohesion in diversified urban societies.

Caring communities respond to unequal access to resources on the basis of intersectional powergeometries by caring for one another in a self-organized manner. As a result, new and more resilient social relationships might develop, which also collectively empower and enable socio-political democratization. However, caring communities do not simply take place in various spaces; they also produce public spaces of mutual care, which then become part of the city's social infrastructure (Latham & Layton, 2019; Middleton & Samanani, 2021; Simone, 2004). Therefore, a growing number of caring communities results in formal and informal cultures of care (Greenhough et al., 2022), which have the potential to create urban cultures of care with high social and spatial visibility and thus opportunities for social interaction.

In this thematic issue, we aim to develop further the concept of “caring communities” and to establish “urban cultures of care” by connecting different strands of already existing discourses. We invite articles from various fields related to urban studies that contribute novel conceptual ideas, insightful case studies, and critical perspectives. We particularly encourage young researchers and authors with a practice-based perspective on urban cultures of care to join this issue.

Reference list:

Gabauer, A., Knierbein, S., Cohen, N., Lebuhn, H., Trogal, K., Viderman, T., & Haas, T. (Eds.). (2022). Care and the city. Routledge.

Greenhough, B., Davis, G., & Bowlby, S. (2022). Why ‘cultures of care’? Social & Cultural Geography, 24(1), 1–10.

Latham, A., & Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13(7), Article e12444.

Lawson, V. (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 1–11.

Middleton, J., & Samanani, F. (2021). Accounting for care within human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 46(1), 29–43.

Simone, A. (2004). People as infrastructure: Intersecting fragments in Johannesburg. Public Culture, 16(3), 407–429.

Theodore, N. (2020). Governing through austerity: (Il)logics of neoliberal urbanism after the global financial crisis. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(1), 1–17.

Planning has always been an ambivalent practice. On the one hand, for the ruling powers planning can be a tool to exercise control and establish hierarchies of power. On the other hand, it can be a tool to distribute resources and lay ground for welfare structures. However, the benefits of planning have never included everyone and there is always a need for a critical eye on planning as a governing practice. This critical eye is today urgent as attacks on democratic institutions are now spreading so fast that, according to Freedom House (2021), there is reason to talk about an “antidemocratic turn” in history. Over a few decades, in Europe and elsewhere, there has been an increasing support of far-right and ethno-nationalist parties. Many of these draw on ideologies of white supremacy and disregard fundamental principles of democracy, such as respect for all people’s rights regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, etc. In a recent report from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), it is stated that in as much as half of the world’s democracies, democracy is currently in retreat. A similar negative tendency is visible among the world’s non-democracies; half of them are becoming significantly more repressive (International IDEA, 2022).

This thematic issue for Urban Planning focuses on the consequences of anti-democratic tendencies for planning practices in different geographical and political contexts and how they risk reinforcing existing un-equal power structures based on e.g., gender, sexuality, class, race and colonial relations. We especially welcome contributions which critically reflect on the effects of current anti-democratic development, what the implications are for different social groups, and what new roles planning must take on in order for it to contribute to new and democratic futures for all.

References:

Freedom House. (2021). Nations in transit 2021: The antidemocratic turn. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/NIT_2021_final_042321.pdf

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. (2022). The global state of democracy 2022: Forging social contracts in a time of discontent. https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/sites/default/files/2022-11/the-global-state-of-democracy-2022.pdf

The rise of the dynamic field known as Geogames has been due to the response of the urban planning domain, supported by digital technologies advances and participatory demands, to pressing contemporary urban issues. Nonetheless, since the 1970s, serious games have been applied as a multiple dialogue communication and training platform, as well as a consensus reaching simulation tool over urban (re)development impacts (Abt, 1970; Duke, 1974; Sanoff, 1979; Summers, 1979). Geogames are a fusion of geospatial technologies, serious gaming mechanics, and playful public participation, providing architects and urban planners with powerful tools to engage a range of stakeholders, simulate scenarios, and up-scale decision-making environments (Ahlqvist & Schlieder, 2018; Andrade et al., 2020; Poplin et al., 2017, 2020). This thematic issue seeks to delve into transgressing the boundaries of the urban and reginonal planning discipline, integrating concepts, epistemologies, and methodologies from game studies, urban and cultural geography, cognitive and environmental psychology, and others.

The factors affecting urban and regional planning today may have multifaceted causes in historic, social, economic, political, and environmental (Levy, 2017) realms, including overlooked decision-making factors such as power and interest relations, and conflicts and coalitions related to stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours (Mayer et al., 2005). This thematic issue aims at assembling cutting-edge research, teaching, and practice insights into the ways geogames are being employed to tackle some of the most pressing issues in urban (re)development including, but not limited to, urban degradation and (re)urbanization; built heritage conservation and sustainability; affordable housing and diverse particular housing needs; public transportation, active mobility, and nature-based solutions for healthy and happy cities; circularity and energy efficiency; and the critical issues of adaptation planning towards climate change impacts.

Original contributions such as theoretical frameworks, empirical studies, and case study analyses are invited, especially the ones navigating the design, development, and implementation of geogames, as well as the impact and effectiveness of geogames facing the challenges of digitalization and complex decision environments. Topics should include the integration of geospatial data in gaming environments, such as participatory urban design simulations; multi-stakeholder values and role-playing engagement; virtual, augmented, and mixed reality applications for urban exploration and visualization; ground-breaking artificial intelligence (AI) in games; and the metaverse in smart cities management. Non-digital games applications, such as board, tabletop, and card games, which reflect upon twinning to a digital format, are also welcomed.

References:

Abt, C. C. (1970). Serious games. Viking Press.

Ahlqvist, O., & Schlieder, C. (2018). Introducing geogames and geoplay: Characterizing an emerging research field. In O. Ahlqvist & C. Schlieder (Eds.), Geogames and geoplay: Game-based approaches to the analysis of geo-information (pp. 1–18). Springer.

Andrade, B., Poplin, A., & de Sena, Í. S. (2020). Minecraft as a tool for engaging children in urban planning: A case study in Tirol Town, Brazil. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(3), Article 170.

Duke, R. D. (1974). Gaming: The future's language. Sage Publications.

Levy, J. M. (2017). Contemporary urban planning. Taylor & Francis.

Mayer, I. S., van Bueren, E. M., Bots, P. W. G., van der Voort, H., & Seijdel, R. (2005). Collaborative decision-making for sustainable urban renewal projects: A simulation – Gaming approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(3), 403–423.

Poplin, A., Andrade, B., & de Sena, Í. S. (2020). Geogames for change: Cocreating the future of cities with games. In D. Leorke & M. Owens (Eds.), Games and play in the creative, smart and ecological city (pp. 64–93). Routledge.

Poplin, A., Kerkhove, T., Reasoner, M., Roy, A., & Brown, N. (2017). Serious geogames for civic engagement in urban planning: Discussion based on four game prototypes. In C. Yamu, A. Poplin, O. Devisch, & G. De Roo (Eds.), The virtual and the real in planning and urban design (pp. 189–213). Routledge.

Sanoff, H. (1979). Design games. William Kaufmann.

Summers, L. H. (1979). Operational games in architecture and design. JAE, 33(1), 2–7.