Search

Questions of responsibility for future‐making often arise in localities where the withdrawal of capital and state seem to leave tangible voids and a sense of loss. Over the past decade, academic discourse has furthered discussions on the role of civic engagement, local initiatives and their agency under conditions of urban shrinkage. However, scholars (including ourselves) are confronted with their own normative assumptions and aspirations when conceptualizing local initiatives in shrinking cities. Through reviewing the literature on this phenomenon, we identified three main epistemological pitfalls that emerge from the legacies of planning discipline, current neoliberal developments and scholars’ own biases. By drawing from our fieldwork experiences, we conclude that local initiatives should be viewed in the plurality of their essences as extremely variegated in form and motivation. We therefore assert the need to disentangle research on local initiatives in shrinking cities from normative aspirations to avoid neoliberal responsibilization, and instead pay attention to the nuances of their aims and practices, achievements and constraints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The individual debates on housing poverty, energy poverty, and mobility poverty for the most part overlook the interwoven nature of all three cost burdens, especially for low-income households. This study examines how the three cost factors interact on a household level, the consequences for those affected by cost burdens, and how they cope and negotiate their expenses. Our research comprises two sets of semi-structured interviews, one before and one during the energy crisis, to gain insight into household experiences and constraints. We found that the freedom to choose where and how to live largely determines how households heat their homes and organize their mobility. The housing crisis together with housing market mechanisms appears to be the main driver of this cost trap; and from here, a complex interplay of causal factors unfolds. Location, often conceived of in terms of an urban–rural divide, seems to be of secondary importance. The intersection of cost burdens results in stress, anxiety, and social exclusion, further limiting the capacity for coping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]