The ongoing debates surrounding sustainability transitions in cities and regions highlight the urgent need to make these transitions fairer, more democratic, and inclusive. Currently, there is increasing recognition that sustainability transitions must be more just to avoid the risk of failure and the deepening of discontent with climate action, particularly in disadvantaged urban areas and among marginalised communities. Similarly, in the field of urban planning, there is a rapidly expanding body of literature on spatial justice, emphasising the need for more equitable planning in terms of the spatial distribution of benefits and burdens, fairness in procedures, and recognition of the diverse needs and interests of different social groups. However, planning practice has yet to keep pace with this trend, and there is a significant knowledge gap regarding how to measure and evaluate spatial justice in the planning process. This paper seeks to address this gap by proposing a spatial justice assessment tool for planning documents. We outline the conceptual model that underpins the tool and demonstrate its application across four European cities.

The assessment is conducted in two phases. The first phase involves using the Values, Strategies, Objectives, and Actions (VSOA) approach to distil essential part of their agenda from the documents prepared by the cities. This approach provides a framework for analysing key components and understanding how values are articulated and translated into actionable measures. It helps to identify the overall vision, the strategies designed to achieve it, the specific objectives set, and the tangible actions proposed. In the second phase, we employ spatial justice as a lens for a qualitative evaluation of how cities address the dimensions of distributive, procedural, and recognition justice within city-wide planning documents. This includes ensuring the fair distribution of burdens and benefits, focusing on processes that do not exacerbate inequalities, and being attentive to needs and aspirations of marginalised and vulnerable groups and identities affected by these transitions.

The paper applies the evaluation tool in four diverse urban contexts: Belfast, Rotterdam, Granollers, and Budapest. These cities vary in size, are located in different parts of Europe, and represent different planning cultures. The plans assessed also cover a range of climate action documents, from overarching sustainability transition plans to more specific energy transition or climate resilience plans. We present and critically evaluate the scores produced by the evaluation of the four planning documents, discussing these findings in relation to the existing literature and considering their implications for planning and policy practice in the context of delivering more just urban sustainability transitions. By deploying the tool in these varied settings, we demonstrate its versatility and broad applicability as a spatial justice assessment framework for urban planning practice. Additionally, we illustrate its potential as a critical discourse analytical tool, revealing the extent to which sustainability transition discourses in urban planning adhere to the principles of spatial justice.@en

This closing chapter brings together the main messages from each chapter. It formulates a policy agenda for circular cities and regions. It does so by providing a set of recommendations for policy practice. These are addressed at authorities and policy stakeholders at the international, national and subnational levels.@en

This paper contributes to the literature on the territorial dimension of EU Cohesion Policy and spatial planning in EU Member States. It offers a perspective on these debates by focusing on the case study of the Czech Republic which exemplifies the group of countries being the main beneficiaries of Cohesion Policy. Building on interviews, document analyses and interactive workshops, the barriers and potentials for cross-fertilisation between Cohesion Policy and spatial planning are identified. Upon this background, concrete policies are recommended. Therefore, the paper goes a step further by explaining why the problem occurs and what can be done about it.@en

Circular economy (CE) is territorialised. Economic activities are spatially embedded; they operate across a variety of scales and are heavily influenced by their spatial context. Yet the CE academic literature and policy frameworks rarely address this dimension. If CE policies are to achieve sustainable development goals and be implementable at a subnational level, these shortcomings need to be addressed. In this chapter, we take stock of the current debates and policy on CE in cities and urban regions, critiquing them from a spatial, socio-ecological and governance perspective. On that basis, we outline a new policy and research agenda to bridge the above-mentioned gap and inform the development and implementation of place-based CE policies.@en

One of the five circular economy (CE) principles is “localisation” or “localism”, understood as a smaller geographical consumption–production system that fits better with local needs. Rightfully, the rationale for localism is derived from ecological principles. However, these arguments remain debated and subsequently can fail to become operationalised in policy goals and measures. From a governance perspective, localism is perhaps the most important CE principle, as it is the only one that clearly links the circulation of resources to a confined area, and so to specific administrative areas, and eventually informs us “who is responsible”, and so will have the advantages, but also the disadvantages, of CE. In this chapter, we turn our attention to the European context, where the European Union (EU) and many of its member states have set out an ambitious policy agenda for moving towards CE. We argue that the current geopolitical turmoil provides a “window of opportunity” through which to clarify the responsibilities for driving a transition towards CE across levels of government and to seize the momentum to operationalise the localism principle and move European cities and regions towards more resilient, circular futures.@en

Energy justice remains relatively under-researched outside of the Western context, especially in Asia. This paper addresses that gap by investigating the process of energy transition in Taiwan through the socio-spatial lens and institutional points of view. The paper underscores the urgency of recognizing and addressing the overlooked social injustices across different territories, advocating an integrated planning approach that incorporates a just energy transition perspective to reduce the uneven negative impacts of deploying renewable energies across communities and regional territories. Drawing on a case study of the Changhua region, the paper identifies conflicts arising from the rapid deployment of renewable energy, such as land use changes that displace farming activities and negatively affect rural stakeholders. The findings suggest the need to urgently address the gap between top–down goals in energy transition and bottom–up considerations to raise awareness and prevent injustices that risk deepening the existing socio-economic inequities. This paper also proposes a new framework for both new research and policy for (just) energy transition, incorporating distributional, procedural, and recognitional concerns together with a critical view on the cross-scale and cross-sectoral integration as part of the spatial planning process. @en

To push forward a transition towards a clean, zero-waste circular economy (CE), cities and regions need to embed circularity goals and principles into their policies and urban planning. Succeeding in this effort requires developing tools for assessing the progress towards CE and to inform the relevant policies through effective evaluation. The current assessment methods face challenges in integrating the relevant dimensions and lack adequate data. Notably, spatial, governance and social aspects of CE transitions are often overlooked. In this chapter, we draw upon the academic literature and real-world policy examples to evaluate critically the existing approaches to CE assessment. Based on this, we provide recommendations to enhance the assessment of CE transitions in cities and regions.@en

Three critical facets of spatial planning are central to defining its character and performance in shaping spatial development: policy integration, the adaptability of plans, and engagement of citizens. This chapter reports on what was learned about general trends in Europe since 2000 for each of these facets drawing on two projects under the name ESPON COMPASS. We briefly introduce integration, adaptability and engagement, and what is known about trends with reference to key sources and examples. The findings complement evidence presented in other parts of this book, especially Chapters 6 and 9. This chapter stands back from much of the detail elsewhere in the book and give a broad and generic assessment based on expert evaluations. The picture is one of substantial reform of planning systems which seek to strengthen integration, enable adaptation of plans to address uncertainty, and engage citizens more deeply in the process.@en

In the European context, cities and regions play a key role in boosting circularity and achieve the European Green Deal action plan ambition to ‘boost the efficient use of resources by moving to a clean, circular economy’. To this end, cities and regions will be instrumental in promoting circularity through engagement with key actors and integration of circular economy (CE) goals within their policies and spatial plans. To support this effort, it is essential to develop appropriate metrics and tools for evaluating the progress and transition towards a circular economy. Although numerous new assessment methodologies have been suggested (Corona et al., 2019), they generally focus on quantitatively assessing how circular a project, system, or business is, or on evaluating the extent to which circular strategies align with the principles of a circular economy. Current metrics rarely extend beyond material sustainability assessments, which means they often do not capture the complexity of the CE transition and lack a comprehensive, integrated perspective. In particular, what they omit are the spatial (Williams, 2020), the governance (Korhonen et al., 2018) and the social dimensions (Pitkänen et al., 2020). In this paper, we propose a holistic transition assessment tool developed and tested across several metropolitan regions, including Amsterdam, Naples, Łódź, Hamburg and Pécs, being at different stages of the circular economy transition. The final version of the tool was applied in two cases, the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area and the city of Tomaszów Mazowiecki. The tool focuses on five dimensions: (1) governance structures, (2) awareness, comprehensiveness of the sustainability assessment, (3) tools for measuring material stocks and flows as well as (4) for co-creation of solutions and strategies with stakeholders, and (5) circular built environment. The results of applying the tool in a series of workshops with regional CE stakeholders allow for exploring the following questions: What is the state of the transition towards CE in European urban regions from a holistic perspective? What hinders these transitions? And how to identify means to overcome those barriers? The assessment tool is of interest for regional and urban policy-makers, planners and stakeholders engaged in development of CE strategies and policies. What is more, the results presented in the paper allow for comparative insights into the state of transition towards CE and for drawing lessons on what it takes to nudge the development of regions and cities towards circularity.@en

Based on the understanding of the built environment as result of competing claims on space that must be resolved via recognition, fair distribution of burdens and benefits of our human association, respect and care for the planet and just procedures to decide on those claims, Spatial Planning and Strategy is a chair in the Department of Urbanism within the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment of the Delft University of Technology, committed to helping create sustainability, resilience and spatial justice through the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Climate Agreement and the European New Deal, among other frameworks. This commitment is reflected in activities, events, and courses. We are concerned with knowledge about the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of strategic and urban planning tools – visions, strategies, plans and programmes.@en

WaVE stands for Water-linked heritage Valorization by developing an Ecosystemic approach. This Interreg Europe project brought together five European locations that have in common a rich history of cultural heritage in which water plays an important role. WaVE’s main goal was to exchange knowledge and insight across those territories to promote integrated adaptive reuses of water-linked cultural heritage sites. The approach used during the project integrated water-linked heritage valorisation with ecosystemic change for sustainable regional and urban futures. The ecosystemic approach advocated by WaVE entails considering water-linked heritage in a holistic way, connecting the tangible, intangible, and natural heritage values and harnessing its power as a catalyst for integrated, place-based, and participatory strategies promoting sustainability and addressing the wider socio-economic and environmental challenges faced by cities and regions. This document presents five key messages formulated on the basis of the actions developed by the partners during the project, combined with the observation of the knowledge transfer processes that led to the elaboration of the action plans, and the insights from the debates during the project events. It provides an overview of the state of play in heritage valorisation policies across the WaVE’s five locations and trends therein while summarising the changes in each of them towards an ecosystemic approach to water-linked heritage. The document concludes with a reflection on the challenges and outlook for the partners and lessons from WaVE in the wider European perspective. @en

Researchers and policymakers have long called for a collaborative governance process for climate adaptation and flood resilience. However, this is usually challenging when urban planning is supposed to be integrated with water management. Using the Chinese city of Guangzhou as a case study, this study explores the long-term disadvantaged conditions of urban planning in flood governance and how this situation is shaped. The findings show that, in comparison to the increasingly dominant position of water management in flood affairs, the urban planning system has had weak powers, limited legitimate opportunities, and insufficient fiscal incentives from the 2000s to the late 2010s. Those conditions have been shaped by organizational structures, institutional rules, and financial allocation in urban governance, whose changes did not bring benefits to urban planning. The emergence of the Sponge City Program in China in 2017 and its implementation at the municipal level is deemed to be a new start for urban planning, considering the encouragement of nature-based solutions and regulatory tools in land use for flood resilience. Even so, the future of this program is still full of challenges and more efforts are needed.@en

As academics, we must debate our research with peers, build on the existing body of research to address knowledge gaps and contribute to developing knowledge and theories that help us make sense of the increasingly complex and uncertain processes that shape regional and urban futures. We are also increasingly expected to step out of the ‘ivory tower’, engage with traditional and social media, co-create knowledge with stakeholders in the ‘real world’, and participate in a dialogue with society at large. Consequently, we witness the emergence of new (often online) tools and platforms to debate and spread knowledge and engage in these interactions. Despite all this, peer-reviewed research papers published in authoritative scholarly journals remain the cornerstone of academic work and the main medium for scholars to spread insights and lessons from their work.

However, the bar for publishing in highly-ranked academic journals is very high. Moreover, academic writing can be frustrating and very daunting, not only for beginning researchers. There is good news, though: writing academic papers is a craft, and like any craft, it builds on a set of principles, skills, and formulas. All of these can be learned and developed. In this short article, I outline some of those, along with ideas and tips on how to begin and succeed in writing your first academic paper.@en

This deliverable is the result of Task 1.1 Theoretical and conceptual framework within the DUST Work package 1 Theory and methods. The document presents a comprehensive framework for research in and across the individual work packages of the DUST project. Guided by the concept of ‘active subsidiarity,’ the DUST project aims at an increased understanding of the participation of the politically least-engaged communities in the deliberative governance of place-based approaches to just sustainability transitions. Key concepts underlying this core objective stem from the fields of public policy, the democracy studies, and spatial planning and design. In conjunction they establish the DUST project’s interdisciplinary focus area within the wider field of citizen participation. More detailed objectives of the project are addressed in different dimensions of the DUST research. In its analytical dimension research will identify factors that enhance or hinder participation. In its evaluative dimension research will result in an index for assessing participation. In its instrumental dimension, research will test instruments for enhancing participation in democratic life at scale. In its communicative dimension research will increase our understanding of how narratives help or hinder participation and how affective two-way communication can support the emergence and dissemination of unheard story lines. The document presents theories and concepts that underpin and guide research in these dimensions.

This Deliverable 1.1 complements Deliverable 1.2, which concerns the methodological framework of the project. It is important to note that both documents are living documents, designed to evolve throughout the course of the project. Knowledge presented here will be further developed in the Tasks 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 and 6.1 which prepare research in individual work packages. A final iteration of the documents will form part of D1.3 Synthesis research report.@en

This report (Deliverable 1.2) provides the DUST research project with a methodological
framework. It builds on the earlier methodology developed during preparation of the project
proposal, updating, expanding, and refining it in line with the development of the DUST
theoretical and framework (Deliverable 1.1) and the early insights from the research process. The purpose of this report is, first, to present the methodological approach of the DUST project to external audiences. Second, this deliverable aims to provide the DUST project team and the
stakeholders and experts involved with methodological guidance on each of the components of the projects and on the ways in which the different methods and research tasks interrelate to produce the expected results. This report is a ‘living document’, subject to updates as the project unfolds and research methods to be used in the specific tasks are further detailed and finetuned. The report outlines the overall methodological approach in the DUST project, including the workflow across its work packages. It also explains the strategy behind selecting the case study areas and briefly presents each of the regions studied. It then covers the research methods used in three phases of the project, namely, in the case study research, in the participatory experimentation following it, and in the exploration of affective communication with the communities engaged in the project. The report closes with a discussion on the synergies between the methods used and the measures taken to ensure validity of findings as well as an overview of the ways in which methodological innovation is delivered.@en