Search

Cities located in the Arctic often have extreme geographic and environmental contexts and unique sociopolitical and economic trajectories that, when combined with amplified effects of climate change in the region, impact future sustainable development. Well-recognized and standardized sustainable development indicator (SDI) frameworks such as ISO 37120 or UN-Habitat City Prosperity Index are often used to compare data across cities globally using comprehensive sets of indicators. While such indexes help characterize progress toward development and guide short- and long-term decision-making, they often lack relevance to specific contexts or characterize future visions of urban growth. To evaluate the extent of these deficiencies and to provide a comparative analysis of approaches to sustainable urban growth in the Arctic, this paper analyzes city planning documents for five northern cities - Anchorage (USA), Utqiagvik (USA), Reyjavik (ISL), Iqaluit, (CAN), Whitehorse, (CAN) - for goals, targets, and indicators and compare these to thematic areas and indicators defined by ISO 37120:2018 Sustainable Cities and Communities. The results confirm that although international SDI frameworks may be useful for comparative analysis of cities across diverse regions, they exclude important local factors that influence goal-oriented urban sustainability planning strategies employed in the Arctic region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inherited system features and challenges that can hinder urban planning initiatives must be taken into consideration before a path towards a sustainable future can be established. By putting the lock-in effect under scrutiny, it is possible to gain valuable insight to emphasize positive lock-ins and to prevent maladaptation and unsustainable solutions. This paper aims to review the current trends of urban studies regarding sustainability, resilience, and the lock-in effect, focusing on both hot topics and mutual integration by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR protocol) and analyzing the top-cited articles on these topics from 2015 to 2021 in the Web of Science database. Based on the revised literature, the potential lock-ins of climate-friendly and sustainable urban development are not adequately discussed. Moreover, while urban sustainability and resilience are often treated as overlapping areas, there is a lack of publications that carefully examine their interlinked long-term perspectives for any hindering effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nature-based solutions (NBS) were introduced as integrated, multifunctional and multi-beneficial solutions to a wide array of socio-ecological challenges. Although principles for a common understanding and implementation of NBS were already developed on a landscape scale, specific principles are needed with regard to an application in urban areas. Urban areas come with particular challenges including (i) spatial conflicts with urban system nestedness, (ii) specific urban biodiversity, fragmentation and altered environments, (iii) value plurality, multi-actor interdependencies and environmental injustices, (iv) path-dependencies with cultural and planning legacies and (v) a potential misconception of cities as being artificial landscapes disconnected from nature. Given these challenges, in this perspective paper, we build upon and integrate knowledge from the most recent academic work on NBS in urban areas and introduce five distinct, integrated principles for urban NBS design, planning and implementation. Our five principles should help to transcend governance gaps and advance the scientific discourse of urban NBS towards a more effective and sustainable urban development. To contribute to resilient urban futures, the design, planning, policy and governance of NBS should (1) consider the need for a systemic understanding, (2) contribute to benefiting people and biodiversity, (3) contribute to inclusive solutions for the long-term, (4) consider context conditions and (5) foster communication and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cities can set in motion sustainability transitions through experimentation and innovation. To invest in and mainstream solutions that contribute to urban transformation agendas, urban planners needs to understand which innovations have transformational potential as well as how these innovations can accelerate sustainability transitions. In order to explore this, existing frameworks of transformative capacity provide the guidance, but they are generic, abstract, and challenging to apply for urban planning. As part of our effort to develop a more operational version of the transformative capacity framework by Wolfram (2016), we conducted a systematic scoping review of the academic literature to determine the characteristics of people-based and nature-based low-carbon innovations that constitutes their transformative capacity. After reviewing 65 records, we identified dimensions indicating each of the transformative capacity components through analysis and synthesis. Besides contributing to the science–policy interface through a knowledge synthesis on low-carbon people-based and nature-based innovations, this paper examines bridging frameworks to inform urban planners in developing practical solutions and actionable elements for low-carbon urban futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this perspective, we present how three initial landmark papers on urban sustainability research contributed to the larger sustainability science scholarship and paved the way for the continued development of urban sustainability research. Based on this, we propose three conceptual innovation pathways to trace the progression of urban sustainability science: First, urban sustainability from a system's perspective, meaning that urban sustainability requires integrative solutions to work in the tripled social-ecological-technological system setting. Second, urban sustainability from a (people and place) relational perspective, meaning urban sustainability is a contested and dynamic social-ecological contract of cities. As a governance mission, urban sustainability requires evidence from research that can inform coordinated action to bridge people, places, meanings, visions and ecosystems. Third, urban sustainability from a transformative science perspective, meaning that for urban sustainability to be achieved and progressed, deep transformations are required in systems, relations, policies and governance approaches. Our proposal for the future of urban sustainability science centres on emphasizing the relevance and policy applicability of systems' thinking, value and place thinking and transitions/transformations thinking as fundamental to how knowledge is co-produced by research science, policy and society and becomes actionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a perspective we find lacking in the general discussion on urban transformative capacity, as well as the discourse on children's environmental experiences and their participation in urban planning processes. Children contribute to the building of urban transformative capacity in several ways. Firstly, they contribute with new perspectives on the environment that broaden existing perspectives on human–environment relations in urban planning. Secondly, children's participation in planning processes challenges existing power relations through the creation of new adult–child relationships which in turn transform relations between adults and other actors and agencies. Thirdly, their participation requires changes in planning practices and the establishment of new routines in order to plan cities which meet the needs of children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]